Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9805A" ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 16:54:02 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: gender difference In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19980501002109.0073bd1c@haverford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Some wars are games. But true war is no game. Would you have called the >Holocaust a game? I'm against war. But in our society sometimes its >necessary. Were everyone as enlightened as we, it wouldn't be. IMHO though, >women don't belong at the front lines. They should be the Home Guard, >protectors, not attackers. >> >> >>I've always thought that I could never engage in combat because it's too >>bloody, inhumanly horrible, and stupid. I thought my fear of combat >>conditions was because I was a woman. Maybe it's just because I'm a >>coward! What a thought! If you threaten my children, I'll be in your >>face. But the kind of stuff Xena does, for example, seems totally >>unnatural for a woman. Maybe it's just unnatural for people who prefer >>their skin unpuctured and their heads on their necks. > >Nah. I know women who could do it. And would. >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Sometimes I think of real war-games, as a kind of natural population-control mechanism. The male is more "expendable" from a population group point of view, than the female - so if someone has to "die for the community" - then it is biologically preferable for it to be males. At various points throughout history, women have been in the front lines, alongside men - or in separate battalions etc - I suspect though, that this was either desperate need ( until recent times, warfare often depended on sheer *numbers* of front-line "expendable" fodder)...or an excess population where it could be considered OK to get rid of some women from the breeding population as well as a majority of males. I was reading recently about some isolated New Guinea cultures which regularly hold bloody battles between neighbouring clans and communities of young adolescent men, in which a substantial minority of their men are killed - and the people readily admit that this is one of the reasons it is performed ... a "culling" mechanism for "excess" males. Most of the men come back...but some will not. Another reason, is that they believe that all adolescents of both genders need to face an extreme emotional crisis in order to become adults. For women it is facing their first experience of childbirth, where they must face the pain, the possibility of their own death or the death of their infant etc. For men it is facing the possibility of their death at the hands of another man in battle... As for women and their ability to kill - there is also the "dark, secret side of motherhood"... traditionally women are seen as the 'last line of defence', or will only raise arms in defence of their children. This is a comforting myth I suspect - one that both men and women prefer - the all-embracing, all-loving Mother figure - who is as real, as the All-Loving Father God, who alone decides who will live, and who will die. but women have killed their own children far more often than we like to admit - and like the men who kill in battle - these mothers have killed for the "common good" - An extract from "Sex and Destiny" - in a chapter titled _Abortion and Infanticide_ : ^ÓThe point of the historical fact (of abortion, infanticide) is clear; women would risk death rather than bear an unwanted child. Sentimentalised notions of motherhood have blurred the real nature of the maternal function as it has been carried out since prehistory. In reality motherhood is a bloody business, from the first menstruations through pregnancies, births, miscarriages.....deaths of mothers themselves. Besides the virtues of tenderness, patience, self-forgetfulness, a mother had to exercise courage, determination and decisiveness. It was not only her duty to bring children into the world in service of her people, but her duty to see that the number of children remained in the right balance with the adult population and the potential food supply. The lesson is clear, if you will not feed them, do not condemn them to life.........^Ô "Thus women in many cultures regard their men as children, who sit all day smoking and discussing morality and politics with their friends, arguing the pros and cons of abortion possibly, while a hundred yards away in the women's souk, a dozen abortifacients can be bought.......And if those same men cannot find the money....for food (etc)...for the children which are the proof of their manhood, it is the women who will conduct them (the children) as gently as possible, out of the world into which they should never have come." Julieanne ppp98@cs.net.au ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 17:43:35 -0900 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Karen Chan Subject: Definitions and other constructs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 1st May, 1998. 4:25 p.m. Hi everyone, I've been lurking here for about a week and have been finding the discussion very interesting. I joined up because I have to do a presentation on feminist sci-fi/fantasy, I found Laura Quilter's page thingummy and got interested. My problem is definitions. I've been struggling with trying to distinguish science fiction from fantasy and what I've come up with is that science fiction is the literature of ideas and fantasy is the literature of imagination, and the two cross-pollinate all the time. Then I struggle to define what feminist sci-fi is, and from what I have read, I think it's literature that seeks to question gender roles and present alternatives. I don't know if all that is valid. I would like to know what you all think. Below I have included a list of quotes from all the stuff I have been reading. I do admit that it is very limited - my university library isn't very good: --- ON SCIENCE FICTION: "Not, however, in science fiction. There alone we find the search for the purposer is still alive. Indeed, in story after story the question arises and is explored at depths that would be impossible in any other genre - even fantasy. For while fantasy is uniquely suited to dealing with human universals - the mythic - science fiction is uniquely suited to dealing with suprahuman universals - the metaphysical. Fantasy can hardly deal seriously with gods, because gods are common motifs, like magic swords and unicorns. Readers aren't expected to believe in them.... But because science fiction specifically excludes supernatural gods as characters in stories, it is possible for science fiction to explore the purpose of life deeply and thoroughly without being distracted by existing theologies." Orson Scott Card, "Maps in a Mirror Vol. 2: Cruel Miracles", pp. 336-337. - "^Åscience fiction is the one lasting American contribution to prose literature. In every other area, we're derivative to the - well, not to the core, because in those areas we have no core. Nobody in other countries aspires to write Westerns, and nobody in Russia or Germany or Japan looks to Updike or Bellow to teach them how to write 'serious' fiction. They already have literary traditions older and better than our so-called best. But in science fiction they all look to us. They want to write science fiction, too, because those who read it in every nation see it as the fiction of possibility, the fiction of strangeness. It's the one genre now that allows the writer to do satire that isn't recognised as satire, to do metaphysical fiction that isn't seen as philosophical or religious proselytizing. In sort, it is the freest, most open literature in the world today, and it is the one literature that foreign writers are learning first and foremost from Americans." Orson Scott Card, "Flux", p. 268. - "Science fiction is the romance of the machine. Fantasy is the romance of the soul." (C.J. Cherryh) Tom Staicar, ed., The Feminine Eye: Science Fiction and the Women Who Write it, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., New York, USA, 1982, p. 15. - "The job of science fiction authors is a difficult one, for the very nature of this genre forces them to unite the power that lies in scientific truth with the emotional wisdom that abides in a fictional vision." Ibid, p. 59. - "Darko Suvin calls science fiction the literature of cognitive estrangement." Marleen S. Barr, Lost in Space: Probing Feminist Science Fiction and Beyond, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London, 1993, p. 4. --- ON FEMINIST SCIENCE FICTION/FANTASY: "I think one of the greatest tellers of Story who has ever lived is Kipling, despite his political failings. But the point for me, who as a child read a lot of stories where only guys ever had adventures while the women stayed at home, I wondered about all the 'little brown people' and maybe if they felt about the roles they were relegated to at all the way I felt about mine as a girrrl. Damar is trying to turn those tables a bit." Robin McKinley, Letter to Damien R. Sullivan, http://ofb.net/~damien/mckinley/letter2.html - "Science fiction has lured a number of new writers from the feminist movement partly because only SF permits unlimited freedom in the settings and situations of feminist fiction. Mainstream novels restrict their writers either to a historical setting where sex roles are already established, or to contemporary settings where potential future sex roles do not exist except for isolated individuals. Only science fiction allows the freedom to create a "laboratory" world where one can experiment with matriarchal societies that dominate entire nations, group marriage, radical approaches to child rearing, and other feminist speculations about alternatives to existing sex roles and living arrangements." Tom Staicar, ed., The Feminine Eye: Science Fiction and the Women Who Write it, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., New York, USA, 1982, p. vii. - "Feminist science fiction, then, acts as a microscope in relation to patriarchal myths. In this volume, I read feminist science fiction as fiction that enlarges patriarchal myths in order to facilitate scrutinizing these myths." Marleen S. Barr, Lost in Space: Probing Feminist Science Fiction and Beyond, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London, 1993, p. 4. - "Feminist science fiction is the key for unlocking patriarch's often hidden agendas; the treasure is a woman's ability to use feminist reading positions as a means to live as freely as possible." Ibid, p. 4. - "Feminist science fiction presents blueprints for social structures that allow women's words to counter patriarchal myths." Ibid, p. 7. - "Science fiction's new feminist chapter expresses a longing for a richer plurality of human images by portraying women as gendered or racial aliens who embrace, rather than quell, the invading monster." Ibid, p. 99. - "...sf/f offers unparalleled opportunities for feminists to explore societal configurations other than the patriarchal societies we all know and love (!). "Only sf and fantasy literature can show us women in entirely new or strange surroundings. It can explore what we might become if and when the present restrictions on our lives vanish, or show us new problems and restrictions that might arise. It can show us the remarkable woman as normal where past literature shows her as the exception." (from Pamela Sargent's "Women and Science Fiction", p. lx of Women of Wonder; italics hers).... "Feminist science fiction" is not a clearly-definable term. It has been used to refer to everything from utopias (eutopias and dystopias), to hard science fiction, to fantasy, to magic realism; from only fiction with a definite political agenda, to any fiction which merely includes a female character. "How does "feminism," then, translate into literature? Works that examine gender issues, works that advocate for equality, works that portray women as strong, capable, or in unusual roles - all of these might qualify as feminist. And some critique on feminist grounds might be made of almost any work, no matter how apparently feminist. If a work somehow helps us to see around and through our gender stereotypes, I would (probably) call it feminist." Laura Quilter, Whys and Wherefores (http://www.uic.edu/~lauramd/femsf/) - Sorry that was so long. Karen. ================================================================== Karen Chan kkchan@ozemail.com.au kkc02@its.uow.edu.au ICQ 2293920 (Mistic Watcher [Proofreader of Mistic Circle & PIGS Secretary] Mistic Circle: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6543) "Myth must be kept alive. The people who can keep it alive are the artists of one kind or another. The function of the artist is the mythologization of the environment and the world." (Joseph Campbell) ================================================================== ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 10:59:01 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Anthea Subject: Re: gender difference In-Reply-To: <5269cab6.3548e082@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 30 Apr 98 at 16:35, Sidhe 71 wrote: > This is the trouble with ignorance about history, and with > believing one's own propaganda. You don't have to be in top > physical shape to be in a wartime army. This person is just plain > wrong, about age, and about women. When I read this statement, I am astounded at the anonymous professor's powers of deduction. Because my views (based on years of reporting for European newspapers) don't agree with his I must therefore be ignorant of history and deluded to boot. This is presumably an example of the heights to which academic debate in history has risen in the years since I completed my MA - I must be more out of touch than I thought. Or perhaps the patriarchal 'professor' felt that, since I was a mere female, a sharp put-down filled with irrelevancies would be more appropriate. Still I should be grateful - at least he didn't point out that I was obviously suffering from PMS when I wrote the posting! > Further, most of today's military personnel (army, navy, air force, > etc.) do NOT engage in combat even in wartime... I must be honest and admit that I have no idea what bearing this and the other tendentious comments have on the age/gender make-up of the soldiers who actually engage in combat. Perhaps the 'professor of history' would care to provide references showing the age/gender distribution of Roman soldiers, of sergeants engaged in combat in WWI & WWII, and of soldiers in Napoleon's 'Old Guard'. I'd be even more interested in references showing that women made up a significant proportion (say >10%) of any forces ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN COMBAT now or over the last few thousand years. To avoid futile argument, I believe that 'in combat' would necessarily require a person to carry a weapon, engage in long periods of fighting and be actually, actively engaged in trying to kill or maim the enemy. In closing I should perhaps point out that from 1989 until I injured my leg in Pakistan last year, I covered (amongst other things) wars and semi-wars for major European newspapers - initially as a stringer but finally on staff. This may account for my anger at the contemptuous dismissal of my views by a patronizing patriarch. AJ ----------------------------------------- gaudit@global.co.za ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 06:36:43 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: SF/F and War (was Gender Diff.) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Okay, I will take the plunge. And Laura I am making a concerted effort to bring this back into the FSFFU fold. The first SF book I read was Forever War - Haldeman. Published in 1975 and very much an extrapolation of Vietnam consciousness into speculative fiction. Moved into Heinlen, Pohl, Clarke, etc. (it was a class so I wasn't picking). At first I thought SF was ONLY about War. (When I later stumbled upon Russ and McIntyre etc. I realized it wasn't). And from the reality of life in the 60/70's, it seemed that as a country/race/world HUMANITY was only about war. Today, on the brink of the "new millennium", I have resolved that within SF and Fantasy war is STILL the ubiquitous given. As it is in the world. (This from having just finished Ammonite -Griffith, Black Wine -Dorsey and Dragon's Winter - Lynn) . Makes sense that our literature reflects our reality, for the world too is still about war. Today however, many writers will portray women as instruments of war in a way not seen years ago. (A stunning example is Elizabeth Moons trilogy Deed of Paksenarrion. Moon by the way is a veteran of the U.S. Marines. And of course the tribes in Ammonite) Again this reflects reality. Women ARE instruments of war. The two highest profile POW's from the (disgustingly obscene and exceedingly unnecessary IMHO) US attacks on Iraq in 90-92 were women. One a pilot who was shot down and one a member of some logistics unit (where supposedly she was "safe" from harm). The highest number of US casualties were the 20-30 men and WOMEN who were strafed by US PILOTS while sleeping in their tents in the "back lines". Women have long been portrayed as cannon fodder in SF/F fiction and now women, at least in the US, have reached the glorified status of "cannon fodder" in real life. Three cheers to us. And let me not forget to proclaim LOUDLY that that which is DONE to women in the name of war (and I will not ruin your day with examples we know they are there) is far more horrific then the tortures of bearing the weapons and striking the blows. At least a soldier has a weapon to attempt to defend himself or to take action against the enemy. What of the women and girls left "safely at home" where danger will presumably never threaten???? If I am to be left open to attack - GIVE ME THE GOD DAMN GUN. I will be able to kill. Estrogen or not. And who of our female list members would not? This too is reflected in SF/F, many titles portray women rising to aggressive and killing actions because of what has been visited upon them or their own in the name of war. So we can debate endlessly where we THINK women belong in the world of war, but it is fruitless. They are already there. Both in our literature and in our lives. Offered in complete humility, donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 10:30:39 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Debra Euler Subject: purpose of the list , Tepper Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Laura Quilter wrote: >>>this list is to discuss feminism and science fiction. yes, of course, gender differences are RELEVANT. everything is RELEVANT, sort of. but try to keep your on-list discussion related to, say, gender differences as exhibited in SCIENCE FICTION. if you want to just respond in general, then do it off-list. we have a lot of readers and it's best (for now) to be specific ... Thanks, Laura. All this discussion (which has been discussed ad nauseam on this list already) of who can fight in a war or who cannot is just boring, in my opinion. Let's discuss some SF! Who has read the "The Family Tree" by Sheri Tepper? I'm a huge Tepper fan, but I was really disappointed in this book. I found it overly preachy about its environmental message, becoming so extreme it bordered on satire, without ever overtly crossing into satire; this made the whole novel just dumb, in my opinion. Which was too bad, because I liked many of the characters and settings. Debra ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 10:28:12 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: GlendaAlex Subject: Movies, angels, strong women Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Could anyone recommend some good science fiction movies? I just saw "The Fifth Element," in which the "Supreme Being" is incarnated as a woman, yet serves the same purpose as any movie bimbo: to show a lot of skin, need a lot of rescueing, and have sex with the hero. Needless to say, there have to be better films out there. Current fiction seems to be trying to bring deities and angels down to earth. I always thought one of the special traits of angels was that they weren't at the mercy of hormones, as human beings are. Think about the number of stories in which someone's choices are narrowed or their fate is determined by their choice of mate. Angels don't have the misery of loss or rejection, and while they don't experience the pleasure of sexual intercourse, there is sometimes a suggestion that they experience something better and more than momentary. Is Paradise just more of what we have right now or is it something better than anything we've ever experienced? For anyone interested in the roles of women in primitive societies, I recommend the cover story in the April issue of "Discover" magazine, "New Women of the Ice Age." Much of what we regard as history or anthropology seems to be part speculative fiction, and only part verifiable fact. This article seems to say that researchers with a more positive attitude about the strength and power of women have found evidence that pre-historic women were, guess what? Stronger and more powerful than previously believed. And their story makes a lot more sense. This is my first post on this list. How do you do? :-) Glenda ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 08:55:08 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Joanna Russ : WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR? Comments: To: donnaneely@EARTHLINK.NET Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Donna: I think the biggest obstacle to discussing WAWFF as a group is not its non-fiction status, but rather it's rather hefty US$27.95 price. Even with the MG discount, it's still $23.76. However, I think perhaps we could have an informal discussion of it among those list members who do get it. Also, I think we may want to give people a while to read it -- I'm probably going to continue to read my copy in "dip" mode, rather than in a straightforward fashion, so I would think that it'll be several months before I'll be ready to discuss it. Other thoughts? Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 08:55:13 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: random comments ... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The book mentioned by David Brin is actually GLORY SEASON. I believe GLORY ROAD is Heinlein. :) I would swear the first time I encountered the word "cunning" in the context of "charming," rather than "clever," was in ALICE IN WONDERLAND. Anyone have it on CD-ROM, so they can do a search by word? Thanks to Anny for her take on DREAMSNAKE. Glad she enjoyed her reread. Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 12:50:44 +0000 Reply-To: releon@syr.edu Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Organization: Syracuse University Subject: Re: Tepper In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 1 May 98 , Debra Euler wrote: > Who > has read the "The Family Tree" by Sheri Tepper? I'm a huge Tepper > fan, but I was really disappointed in this book. I found it overly > preachy about its environmental message, becoming so extreme it > bordered on satire, without ever overtly crossing into satire; this > made the whole novel just dumb, in my opinion. Which was too bad, > because I liked many of the characters and settings. > I haven't read it yet, although I did nominate for BDG to give me an excuse to... Your comments remind of my reactions to Gibbon's Decline. The book too obviously had a message, and the obviousness overrode my enjoyment of the story. Same thing happened to me with Tom Robbins _Skinny Legs and All_. Message is great, and if I hate a message, I'll hate a book, but I really feel that well-crafted tales tell a story which encompasses something, rather than having the message too clearly in the drivers seat. How sad; I love Tepper, and it seems we have a trend in her writings. Rudy Leon Syracuse University releon@syr.edu (315) 425-8171 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 13:07:00 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Subject: Re: X-Files: Sex with angels Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-04-28 07:26:59 EDT, you write: << I mean, look, angels are NOT supposed to marry human folk. This is explicity explained in the bible, right? >> I believe that angels are resurrected humans. They've already been humans on Earth; now they're in a different state of existence, with more powers and abilities and knowledge than they had as mere Earthlings. But they're still themselves. If you think being an angel sounds boring, I thought so too, when I thought all they do is float around plucking harps and singing praises. That's good for 20 minutes, tops. But you continue working and growing and learning in the next life. And angels are not sexless, either. You can continue your relationships in the next life, meaning you can still have your spouse and continue to have children. This is the Mormon view; we don't hold to the built-in divorce of "till death do us part." That's why we say that families are forever. barbara ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 13:12:19 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Stahl, Sheryl" Subject: Re: Definitions and other constructs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Apologies in advance for what may be a half-assed answer. I seem to remember that in her book _To write like a woman_ Joanna Russ had an essay on just this - she started with someone elses def. (Samual Delaney?) and discussed it in length - the def. was something like this: Fantasy cover things that cannot happen - for example there is no such thing as fairies, dwarves etc. so books about them are fantasy. Science fiction covers things that have not happened (yet) While we don't have FTL drive now - we may in the future. It was an interesting article -but I read it so long ago I can't remember too many details - I would recommend that book of essays in anycase. The quotes you found were interesting. sheryl > ---------- > From: Karen Chan[SMTP:kkchan@OZEMAIL.COM.AU] > Reply To: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian > literature > Sent: Friday, May 01, 1998 10:43 PM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: [*FSFFU*] Definitions and other constructs > > 1st May, 1998. 4:25 p.m. > > Hi everyone, I've been lurking here for about a week and have been > finding > the discussion very interesting. I joined up because I have to do a > presentation on feminist sci-fi/fantasy, I found Laura Quilter's page > thingummy and got interested. > > My problem is definitions. I've been struggling with trying to > distinguish > science fiction from fantasy and what I've come up with is that > science > fiction is the literature of ideas and fantasy is the literature of > imagination, and the two cross-pollinate all the time. Then I struggle > to > define what feminist sci-fi is, and from what I have read, I think > it's > literature that seeks to question gender roles and present > alternatives. I > don't know if all that is valid. I would like to know what you all > think. > > Below I have included a list of quotes from all the stuff I have been > reading. I do admit that it is very limited - my university library > isn't > very good: > > --- > > Karen. > > ================================================================== > Karen Chan kkchan@ozemail.com.au kkc02@its.uow.edu.au ICQ 2293920 > > (Mistic Watcher [Proofreader of Mistic Circle & PIGS Secretary] > Mistic Circle: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6543) > > "Myth must be kept alive. The people who can keep it alive are the > artists of one kind or another. The function of the artist is the > mythologization of the environment and the world." > (Joseph Campbell) > > ================================================================== > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 10:47:44 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: BDG Nomination: Shadow Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'd like to nominate Shadow Man, by Melissa Scott, for the group to read and discuss. List price $13.95, Paperback Published by Tor Books Publication date: December 1996 ISBN: 0312862067 Here's an except from a review I did of the book: Shadow Man has been compared to Ursula Le Guin's classic The Left Hand of Darkness; in fact, Shadow Man was nominated for the Tiptree award in 1995 and won the 1996 Lambda Award. While Scott has always flirted with gender issues in her books, this is the first time she's approached it as the main concept, and while Le Guin's shoes are awfully big to fill, I think it's a terrific attempt. In this story, people have five recognized genders as a result of a drug used to enable faster-than-light travel. The book takes place on a planet out of contact with other humans for five hundred years, a backwater place which refuses to recognize more than our current two genders, men and women. The story revolves around Warreven Stiller, a "herm" (the middle of the five genders) who is a lawyer and reluctant leader of his/her extended family. As a youth, Stiller turned down marriage into a rich and influential family because s/he was unwilling to accept the price: deny her/his true gender and act as a woman. Stiller's refusal to deny his/her sexuality and gender for her/his family's political gain brands him/her a troublemaker, and as the story unfolds s/he more and more openly challenges the system as a gender outlaw. You can read more on Scott's web page: http://www.rscs.net/~ms001/shadowm.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 11:04:08 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Le Anne Fossmeyer Subject: Way off topic--angels, gender, and the bible MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain I am totally bored with this thread, but I can't keep my nose out of it. Could I pretend my 2 cents are on-topic if I refer to Revelations and the Book of Mormon as SF? To the bible as fantasy/mythology? Does any of it matter since I'm bound to offend tons of people here? Barbara wrote: >And angels are not sexless, either. You can continue your relationships in the >next life, meaning you can still have your spouse and continue to have >children. This is the Mormon view; we don't hold to the built-in divorce of >"till death do us part." That's why we say that families are forever. I think that's probably a Mormon thing--the mythological(!) Jesus clearly states in the Gospel (King James version and others) that sex (gender) doesn't exist in the afterlife. As I recall, Jesus begins this by explaining that if a man dies, one of his unmarried brothers should marry the widow. Then the followers ask him what happens when the woman and brother die--who is she married to then? Jesus explains that this is irrelevant because we leave our bodies and become spirit only--male and female become one, with no distinction, no marriage. I can't recall off the top of my head which book of the Gospel this is in.... I would suspect that this passage remained through the many re-writings of the bible just as the E (or Elohim) story of creation has remained side-by-side in Genesis with the J (Jehovah) story of creation. The two myths contradict each other, but what are you going to do when so many people have memorized both stories? The Catholics tell you it's God's mystery, the Jews create the Lilith folklore, and everyone else ignores the contradiction. I don't recall any of the versions I read of the bible saying that angels are resurrected humans and I don't recall stories of any angel's human life, but I can't really say that's just a Mormon thing. I'm certainly no authority--I just read lots and lots of bibles--enough to see the curious contradictions, hypocrisies, poetry, repetitions of other myths, and the beauty of the words. That's how I became an atheist--by reading the bible. =D ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 20:15:51 GMT+100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: BDG Nomination period closed Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT The nomination period for the book discussion group is closed now. In total 21 books were nominated (see below). An html file with further descriptions and comments on the nominated books has been produced and will be posted on a web side soon. The volunteer who coordinates the voting process (not me) will explain that procedure today or tomorrow. Please DO NOT send any votes before that time. Have a nice weekend (mine starts now). Petra Books nominated (listed is always the cheapest paperback edition currently available): Marion Zimmer Bradley: The Mists of Avalon Publisher: Del Rey; Publication Date: July 1987; List price: US-$14.00; ISBN: 0345350499 Octavia E. Butler: Wild Seed Publisher: Warner Books; Publication Date: July 1995; List price: US-$5.99; ISBN: 0445205377 Don't Bet on the Prince: Contemporary Feminist Fairy Tales in North America and England. Ed.: Jack Zipes. Publisher: Routledge; Publication Date: 1989; List price: US-$17.99; ISBN: 0415902630 Candas Jane Dorsey: Black Wine Publisher: Tor; Publication Date: January 1998; List price: US-$13.95; ISBN: 0312865783 Karen Joy Fowler: Sarah Canary Publisher: Kensington Pub Corp (Mass Market); Publication date: March 1993; List price: US-$5.99; ISBN: 0821740881 Mary Gentle: Grunts!: A Fantasy With Attitude Publisher: NAL, Publication Date: Aug 1997; List price: US-$6.99; ISBN 0451454537 Molly Gloss: The Dazzle of Day Publisher: Tor; Publication Date: April 1998; List price: US-$12.95; ISBN: 031286437X Jewelle Gomez: The Gilda Stories Publisher: Firebrand ; Publication Date: Jun 1991; List price: US-$11.95; ISBN 093237994X Ellen Kushner: Swordspoint: Melodrama of manners Publisher: Tor; Publication Date: June 1994; List price: US-$4.99; ISBN: 0812536444 Stephen Leigh: Dark Water's Embrace Publisher: Ace Books; Publication Date: March 1998; List price: US-$3.99; ISBN: 0380794780 Shariann Lewitt: Momento Mori Publisher: Tor; Publication Date: April 1997; List price: US-$14.95; ISBN: 0312862946 Robin McKinley: Deerskin Publisher: Ace Books; Publication Date: July 1994; List price: US-$5.99; ISBN: 044100069X Kristine Kathryn Rusch: Alien Influences Publisher: Bantam Spectra; Publication Date: December 1997; List price: US-$5,99, ISBN: 0553569988 UK: Publisher: Millennium Books; Publication Date: June 1995 Mary Doria Russell: The Sparrow Publisher: Fawcett Books (Ballantine Reader's Circle), Publication date: September 1997, List price: US-$12.00; ISBN: 0449912558 Melissa Scott: Shadow Man Publisher: Tor; Publication Date: December 1996; List price: US-$13.95; ISBN: 0312862067 Sharon Shinn: Archangel Publisher: Ace Books; Publication Date: April 1997; List price: US-$6.50; ISBN: 0441004326 Sheri S. Tepper: Family Tree Publisher: Eos (Mass Market); Publication date: May 1998, List price: US-$6.99, ISBN: 0380791978 Sheri S. Tepper: Gibbon's Decline and Fall Publisher: Bantam Books; Publication date: July 1997, List price: US-$6.99, ISBN: 0553573985 Sheri S. Tepper: The True Game Publisher: Ace Books; Publication date: June 1996, List price: US-$15.95, ISBN: 0441003311 James Tiptree Jr.: Brightness Falls From the Air Publisher: St Martins; Publication date: September 1993, List price: US-$9.95, ISBN: 0312854072 Joan D. Vinge: The Snow Queen Publisher: Warner Books; Publication date: 1992, List price: US-$5.99, ISBN: 0445205296 Women of Wonder : The Contemporary Years : Science Fiction by Women from the 1970s to the 1990s. Ed.: Pamela Sargent Publisher: Harvest Books; Publication date: 1995, List price: US-$15.00, ISBN: 0156000334 ** Petra Mayerhofer ** pm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de ** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 16:01:47 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Subject: Re: angels Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-04-28 14:13:58 EDT, you write: << these benevolent buff male critters often looking vaguely like robed Fabios with feathers, >> The feathers bit makes no sense. I imagine they originated with a medieval artist who had never seen anything fly unless it had wings, so he extrapolated. (The buff male part is all right, though!) Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 20:07:35 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: random comments ... >I would swear the first time I encountered the word "cunning" in the >context of "charming," rather than "clever," was in ALICE IN >WONDERLAND. My recollection is that my first encounter with this usage was in _Little Women_ and that I did register it as different from the meaning I had already learnt. (And I must have first read LW around the same time as AiW). I don't recall the word in Alice Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 16:27:06 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: nomination MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Does anyone know if Severna Park's =hnd of Prophesy= is available in paperback? I have a hardcover copy of it here, one of the "paperback" size hardcovers being printed by Eos. If it is available in paperback, then I would nominate it for the list. If it is only in hardcover, then how about her first book, =Speaking Dreams= instead. I have that one in paperback. Sharon Shinn's Archangel is a good one (it's already on the list). She makes some intriguing comments about sexuality in "angels," as human being regard them. Her angels aren't always so angelic! Archangel is about a male Archangel, but her next book (which I haven't read), =Jovah's Angel,= apparently has two women who, at different times, are the head Archangels. I've also heard that =Jovah's Angel= give the science fictional backing to the story. Another possibility is Shard's of Honor/Barrayar by Lois McMaster Bujold. The two books, which tell one story, are (I think) both published as one book called =Cordelia's Honor.= Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 22:10:45 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sharon Clark Subject: BDG Nominations (AGAIN) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------69B4C91A2F2E6235245C6444" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------69B4C91A2F2E6235245C6444 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I DID post BDG nominations before the 8 p.m. (Germany) deadline, but they bounced back to me--so here they are again. -Sharon Clark --------------69B4C91A2F2E6235245C6444 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline >From smrsh Fri May 1 19:16:19 1998 Received: from tudedr.et.tudelft.nl by cas.et.tudelft.nl with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/16.2) id AA247012978; Fri, 1 May 1998 19:16:18 +0200 Return-Path: Received: from mx01.globecomm.net by ITS.TUDelft.NL (PMDF V5.1-10 #21918) with ESMTP id <01IWJ3HXUXT28WZ4YB@ITS.TUDelft.NL> for remco@cas.et.tudelft.nl; Fri, 1 May 1998 19:16:16 +0200 Received: from piglet.cc.uic.edu (PIGLET.CC.UIC.EDU [128.248.100.54]) by mx01.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id NAA25127 for ; Fri, 01 May 1998 13:13:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from piglet.cc.uic.edu (PIGLET.CC.UIC.EDU [128.248.100.54]) by piglet.cc.uic.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA52584 for ; Fri, 01 May 1998 12:13:48 -0500 Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 12:13:48 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University of Illinois at Chicago (1.8c)" Subject: Rejected posting to FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU To: ouch@SNAKEBITE.COM Message-Id: <199805011713.MAA52584@piglet.cc.uic.edu> You are not authorized to send mail to the FEMINISTSF list from your root@CAS.ET.TUDELFT.NL account. You might be authorized to send to the list from another of your accounts, or perhaps when using another mail program which generates slightly different addresses, but LISTSERV has no way to associate this other account or address with yours. If you need assistance or if you have any question regarding the policy of the FEMINISTSF list, please contact the list owners: FEMINISTSF-request@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU. ------------------------ Rejected message (95 lines) -------------------------- Received: from cas.et.tudelft.nl (cas.et.tudelft.nl [130.161.37.2]) by piglet.cc.uic.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA78864 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 12:13:37 -0500 Received: from simba (remco.et.tudelft.nl) by cas.et.tudelft.nl with SMTP (1.37.109.24/16.2) id AA246502804; Fri, 1 May 1998 19:13:24 +0200 Sender: root@cas.et.tudelft.nl Message-Id: <354A1229.425C648E@snakebite.com> Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 19:19:21 +0100 From: Remco de Zwart X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i586) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Cc: pm@IER.UNI-STUTTGART.DE Subject: BDG Nominations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would like to nominate 2 story collections and one novel. 1. Women of Wonder : The Contemporary Years : Science Fiction by Women from the 1970s to the 1990s. edited by Pamela Sargent. publisher: Harvest Books 1995 ISBN: 0156000334 paperback, list price: US-$15.00 ($12.00 @ Amazon.com) This is an astounding collection of short sf by women writers. Stories such as Octavia Butler's "Bloodchild" and Pat Murphy's "Rachel in Love," just to name a few, make this a must-have collection. The Table of Contents can be found at Amazon.com by pulling up the info. on the book. A short fiction collection is advantageous because it exposes readers to a wide variety of authors, styles, and concepts. And short stories are convenient to read for those with busy schedules (you get the impact of each story in one non-stop read without having to return to previous sections--as with novels--to refresh your memory). ----------------------------------------------------------- 2. Don't Bet on the Prince: Contemporary Feminist Fairy Tales in North America and England. edited by Jack Zipes. publisher: Routledge 1989 ISBN: 0415902630 paperback, list price: US-$17.99 The blurb on the back cover of the book sums it up nicely: "'Don't Bet on the Prince' demonstrates how recent male and female writers, by looking at the classical literary fairy tale with new eyes, have changed the aesthetic constructs and social content of fairy tales in order to reflect the major changes in the roles of sex, gender, socialisation and education since the 1960s. It is an excellent example of how the literature of fantasy and imagination can be harnessed to create a new view of the world." "'Don't Bet on the Prince' is for anyone interested in questioning the traditional values and expectations by which our perceptions of ourselves are formed. It will be of special interest to those concerned with the feminist movement, women's studies and the growing feminist sensibility in fantasy literature. Its tales will also appeal to children, and the child in every adult." -------------------------------------------------------- 3. The Snow Queen by Joan D. Vinge publisher: Warner Books 1992 ISBN: 0445205296 mass market paperback, list price US-$5.99 ($4.79 @ Amazon.com) This novel, which won the Hugo, caused me to get very little sleep for some days. I had a hard time putting it down. The world Joan Vinge creates is complex and enthralling. The book contains very strong female protagonists, a mother-goddess religion, and interesting issues (such as alienating certain individuals from society due to superstition and ignorance, and a powerful Hegemony using the technologically inferior planet Tiamat for its resources without regard to the welfare of the people there). The quote from Vonda McIntyre (in the front of the book) regarding the Snow Queen says it beautifully: "Draws you in and does not let you go...the Snow Queen is a piece of lace: its threads twist and mesh together to form a pattern of complexity and beauty." -------------------------------------------------------- -- Sharon Clark --------------69B4C91A2F2E6235245C6444-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 23:24:15 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Alison Page Subject: Re: angels MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lurima - > The feathers bit makes no sense. I imagine they originated with a medieval > artist who had never seen anything fly unless it had wings, so he > extrapolated. > > (The buff male part is all right, though!) Its pretty certain that the hebrew concept of the 'angel' is derived from the mesopotamian semi-deities called (by Semitic speakers) something like kerab(im) and serap(im) = our cherubs and seraphs. Can't remember the details, but if you look at Babylonean or Assyrian bas-reliefs you will see big human figures with large feathered wings - some of them have beaks too and bird feet. They often stand protectively behind the king in sculptures. They are always male because they are kind of spiritual bodyguards. I think that understanding how modern religious ideas are derived from earlier mythical systems makes you realise that stories about angels are part of a continuous myth stretching back long before christianity, or judaism in its present form. And to me that means there are no 'right' and 'wrong' ways of writing about them (apart from the fact that most of these stories are unutterably dull of course) Alison ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 15:31:10 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jo Ann Rangel Subject: Re: angels FE>Received: from piglet.cc.uic.edu [128.248.100.54] by WGSERVER.Silent-Running FE> id AOBOCKEB ; Fri, 1 May 1998 14:30:42 -0500 FE>Received: from piglet.cc.uic.edu (PIGLET.CC.UIC.EDU [128.248.100.54]) FE> by piglet.cc.uic.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA47324; FE> Fri, 1 May 1998 15:03:42 -0500 FE>Received: from LISTSERV.UIC.EDU by LISTSERV.UIC.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release FE> 1.8c) with spool id 550773 for FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU; Fri, 1 FE> May 1998 15:02:24 -0500 FE>Received: from imo30.mx.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.74]) by FE> piglet.cc.uic.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA71440 for FE> ; Fri, 1 May 1998 15:02:22 -0500 FE>Received: from Lurima@aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id JHVSa02448 f FE> ; Fri, 1 May 1998 16:01:47 -0400 (EDT FE>X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 40 FE>Message-ID: FE>Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 16:01:47 EDT FE>Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" FE> FE>Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" FE> FE>From: Lurima FE>Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] angels FE>To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU FE>In a message dated 98-04-28 14:13:58 EDT, you write: FE><< these benevolent buff male FE> critters often looking vaguely like robed Fabios with feathers, >> FE>The feathers bit makes no sense. I imagine they originated with a medieval FE>artist who had never seen anything fly unless it had wings, so he FE>extrapolated. FE>(The buff male part is all right, though!) FE>Barbara Hiya, On my path to educational excellence, I was in a biology lab class and the professor told us that the feathers on birds are the equivalent of scales on certain species that we would see today as Lizards or reptilian-like critters. I found this statement fascinating to me for the purposes of imagination. Are angels a by-prouduct of all that is created on earth, and feathers are just a tiny piece of the practical purpose of such invention? Are Gargoyles an extention of imagination or a by product of dragon-lore? The connectiveness always interests me to no end. Also to bring this convo back to Feminist Sci-Fi: Wild Seed by Butler was to me one of the better examples of the depiction of a strong woman character dealing with her role as she remains herself an entire being yet time passes over her and past her into centuries...very highly recommended if you are new to Butler if you want to see how a complex story can work on several different levels. Has anyone written a work under Feminist Sci-Fi that has angel-type beings for protagonists? just wondering 8) Jo Ann ----------------------------------------------------- Silent Running BBS, Riverside, California. 2 MajorMUD games, 3 LORD games and 2 Tradewars games WWW.Silent-Running.com / telent silent-running.com 909-343-2030 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 18:43:47 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: joe santini Subject: Re: angels In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Is _Touched by an Angel_ science fiction? If so is it feminist? If so is it literature? One wonders. Certainly it could be considered literature of a sort, since it is initially written, then performed. Feminist? perhaps. Two of the "Angels" are women, and one is usually I think more prominent. Science fiction? There's the rub. It could be more fantastic or utopian instead, IMHO. At 03:31 nox 5/1/98 -0500, you wrote: >FE>Received: from piglet.cc.uic.edu [128.248.100.54] by WGSERVER.Silent-Running >FE> id AOBOCKEB ; Fri, 1 May 1998 14:30:42 -0500 >FE>Received: from piglet.cc.uic.edu (PIGLET.CC.UIC.EDU [128.248.100.54]) >FE> by piglet.cc.uic.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA47324; >FE> Fri, 1 May 1998 15:03:42 -0500 >FE>Received: from LISTSERV.UIC.EDU by LISTSERV.UIC.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release >FE> 1.8c) with spool id 550773 for FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU; Fri, 1 >FE> May 1998 15:02:24 -0500 >FE>Received: from imo30.mx.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.74]) by >FE> piglet.cc.uic.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA71440 for >FE> ; Fri, 1 May 1998 15:02:22 -0500 >FE>Received: from Lurima@aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id JHVSa02448 f >FE> ; Fri, 1 May 1998 16:01:47 -0400 (EDT >FE>X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 40 >FE>Message-ID: >FE>Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 16:01:47 EDT >FE>Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" >FE> >FE>Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" >FE> >FE>From: Lurima >FE>Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] angels >FE>To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > >FE>In a message dated 98-04-28 14:13:58 EDT, you write: > >FE><< these benevolent buff male >FE> critters often looking vaguely like robed Fabios with feathers, >> > >FE>The feathers bit makes no sense. I imagine they originated with a medieval >FE>artist who had never seen anything fly unless it had wings, so he >FE>extrapolated. > >FE>(The buff male part is all right, though!) > >FE>Barbara > >Hiya, > >On my path to educational excellence, I >was in a biology lab class and the professor told us that the feathers >on birds are the equivalent of scales on certain species that we would >see today as Lizards or reptilian-like critters. I found this statement >fascinating to me for the purposes of imagination. Are angels a >by-prouduct of all that is created on earth, and feathers are just a >tiny piece of the practical purpose of such invention? Are Gargoyles > an extention of imagination or a by >product of dragon-lore? The connectiveness always interests me to no >end. > >Also to bring this convo back to Feminist Sci-Fi: Wild Seed by Butler >was to me one of the better examples of the depiction of a strong woman >character dealing with her role as she remains herself an entire being >yet time passes over her and past her into centuries...very highly >recommended if you are new to Butler if you want to see how a complex >story can work on several different levels. > >Has anyone written a work under Feminist Sci-Fi that has angel-type >beings for protagonists? just wondering 8) > >Jo Ann > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Silent Running BBS, Riverside, California. > 2 MajorMUD games, 3 LORD games and 2 Tradewars games > WWW.Silent-Running.com / telent silent-running.com > 909-343-2030 > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Have you no respect for the past? For what was thought and believed by your foremothers?" "Why, no," she said. "Why should we? They are all gone. They knew less than we do. If we are not beyond them, we are unworthy of them--and unworthy of the children who must go beyond us." -Charlotte Gilman, "Herland" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * joseph santini haverford college '01 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 18:35:18 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: random comments ... Maybe Alice had been reading Little Women! (Can't off-hand think of the relative dates of each.) I don't remember it, either, but will keep a sharp eye out next time I read Alice. Or, I suppose, get one of those CD-ROMs of western literature, or whatever, and do a text search. Why do I find that idea somehow repugnant? May we consider Alice a feminist heroine of speculative fiction? I suppose we'd have to see her interact with real-world males to judge, but she did not, that I remember, defer more than courtesy required to the male characters she encountered, and she certainly questioned authority! On Fri, 1 May 1998 20:07:35 UT Lesley Hall writes: > >I would swear the first time I encountered the word "cunning" >in the > >context of "charming," rather than "clever," was in ALICE IN > >WONDERLAND. > >My recollection is that my first encounter with this usage was in >_Little >Women_ and that I did register it as different from the meaning I had >already >learnt. (And I must have first read LW around the same time as AiW). I >don't >recall the word in Alice >Lesley >Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com > _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 19:02:51 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: Feminism and the Discworld Just received my copy of "The Last Continent" (via Book Pages/UK, very fast: wasn't expecting it for a couple of weeks yet). I'm going home to read it. I expect to have a nice weekend. On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 21:25:45 +0100 Catweasel writes: >It has come to my attention that far too many of you have thus-far >been >deprived of all knowledge and experience of the wonders that comprise >the > Discword. Gentlefolks, please, step this way. Prepare to be >mesmerised >by "The Colour of Magic". Trip "The Light Fantastic" as you celebrate >"Equal Rites." Be "Mort"ified by the faustian tale of "Eric." Come, >"Wyrd Sisters," gaze in awe at the "Pyramids," and perhaps the >changing >of the "Guards! Guards!" double as ushers if you attend the "Moving >Pictures" to see "Reaper Man." "Witches Abroad," you may even find >"Small Gods." "Lords and Ladies," "Men At Arms," to help you unwind we >suggest a little "Soul Music." We promise you "Interesting Times" at >the > "Maskerade," so don't stand there with "Feet of Clay." As added >incentive the "Hogfather" has an offer you can't refuse, if you can >understand his "Jingo." > >? > > >Trust me, I'm a doctor. >Catweasel > >I have an inferiority complex, but it isn't a very good one. > _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 19:28:30 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cindy Smith Subject: Re: Angels and Wings The notion that angels have wings is based on Biblical texts, not medieval artists per se. Genesis 3:24b: "and he stationed the cherubim and the fiery revolving sword, to guard the way to the tree of life" (NAB). The New Jerusalem Bible renders the sentence, "and in front of the garden of Eden he posted the great winged creatures and the fiery flashing sword, to guard the way to the tree of life." The New American Bible notes that the rendering is based on the ancient Greek version. The NJB notes that this is borrowed from Babylonian mythology." Exodus 25:18 has "two great winged creatures of beaten gold," which the NJB notes say is equivalent to the Babylonaian "karibu, half-animal, half-human spirits guarding the gates of temples and palaces. In Biblical descriptions and Middle Eastern iconography, the great winged creatures were winged sphinxes. Winged creatures played no part in the cult in the desert, and do not seem to occur in the cult of Yahweh earlier than the stay of the ark at Shiloh, where Yahweh was entitled, 'He who is enthroned on the great winged creatures.' 1 S 4:4; 2 S 6:2; see 2 K 19:15; Ps 80:1; 99:1, and is said to 'ride on the winged creatures', 2 S 22:11; see Ps 18:10. In Solomon's Temple, they formed a frame for the ark and disappeared when the ark disappeared. In the post-exilic Temple, two little figures of winged creatures were attached to the mercy-seat, see preceding note. In Ezk 1 and 10, God's chariot is drawn by winged creatures." Note that the NAB translates "winged creatures" as "cherubim," one of the nine choirs of angels described in the Bible. The angels are sometimes male, though not necessarily. In Ezekiel, it's difficult to tell their sex. Isaiah's angels, however, are male. Isaiah 6:2 says, "Seraphim were stationed above; each of them had six wings: with two they veiled their faces, with two they veiled their feet, and with two they hovered aloft." The word "feet" is a euphemism in Hebrew for the male sexual organ. Thus, "to bathe your feet" means to engage in sexual intercourse and "to cover your feet" means to urinate. However, I'm reliably informed by someone who knows Hebrew (as I do not) that the word here for "veil" is not the same as the word normally used to mean urination; therefore, these angels are literally "veiling" or "covering" their penises with their wings (presumably out of modesty). Revelation 4:8 has Seraphim very similar to Isaiah. Ezekiel's angels are really interesting but I can't do him justice; you should read it for yourself. Leonard Nimoy did an interesting "In Search Of...." story on Ezekiel's description of angels once, claiming that it may have been an ancient Israelite's description of an extraterrestrial being (aka Daniken's Ancient Astronaut's theory), though I don't think theories like that hold much water. Daniken has been pretty thoroughly discredited and "In Search Of..." wasn't known for its scientific accuracy, though I used to watch it simply because I love Leonard Nimoy :-). Cindy Smith Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\ _\\\_ _///_ // >IXOYE=('> <`)= _<< A Real Live Catholic in Georgia cms@dragon.com // /// \\\ \\ Delay not your conversion to the LORD, Put it not off from day to day Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8 Read the mailing list Bible@dragon.com Read the mailing list Literature@dragon.com Read the mailing list nt-trans@dragon.com (Greek New Testament) Read the mailing list ot-trans@dragon.com (Hebrew Old Testament) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 16:51:15 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: Angels and Wings In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 01 May 98 19:28:30 CDT." <009C58BF.C972BCC0.22@dragon.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I always admired the cherubim and seraphim in, I believe, the 3rd Madeline L'Engle book, "A Wind In The Door". They sure weren't human. In fact, I have a vague memory of Mrs. Who, Which & Whatsit (from A Wrinkle In Time) being angels, although I think they were claiming that they term "angels" was something of a metaphor. I don't know whether I'd call those books feminist, because I think in many ways they use traditional patterns of male/female interaction. On the other hand, I suspect it was much more radical in 1962 to have your main characters be strong, competent women who were brilliant at math and science. And then to teach that sort of thing to children! jessie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 16:58:45 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: BDG Voting begins 5/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The voting period for the Feminist Science Fiction and Fantasy Book Discussion Group will open tomorrow, May 2nd. You are invited to vote on books to be part of our discussion during the upcoming six months. The voting period is from May 2 until May 8. That means you must send your vote by the end of Friday the 8th (midnight PST, west coast of US) in order for them to be included. Winners will be announced Monday, May 11. Discussion on the first book will begin Monday, June 1. To vote: 1. Send an email to terriergraphics@cybertours.com with your vote. If you don't receive a confirmation within 48 hours, you should resubmit your votes, to make sure things don't get lost. 2. Vote for up to six books. The six books with the highest number of votes win. In the event of a tie, we'll find some random way to decide which book(s) are selected (e.g. coin toss). Petra sent the final list of nominated books in her email announcing the close of voting earlier today. We are waiting for the list to be posted to the FSF web site and will distribute the URL as soon as it's available. We'll keep the actual votes confidential but will also save them. -- Jennifer Krauel book discussion group coordinator jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 17:23:32 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jo Ann Rangel Subject: Re: Angels and Wings FE>Received: from piglet.cc.uic.edu [128.248.100.54] by WGSERVER.Silent-Running FE> id BADKBECL ; Fri, 1 May 1998 16:58:22 -0500 FE>Received: from piglet.cc.uic.edu (PIGLET.CC.UIC.EDU [128.248.100.54]) FE> by piglet.cc.uic.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA66402; FE> Fri, 1 May 1998 18:51:24 -0500 FE>Received: from LISTSERV.UIC.EDU by LISTSERV.UIC.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release FE> 1.8c) with spool id 556670 for FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU; Fri, 1 FE> May 1998 18:51:18 -0500 FE>Received: from mail1.digital.com (mail1.digital.com [204.123.2.50]) by FE> piglet.cc.uic.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA76052 for FE> ; Fri, 1 May 1998 18:51:17 -0500 FE>Received: from pobox1.pa.dec.com (pobox1.pa.dec.com [16.1.240.19]) by FE> mail1.digital.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/WV1.0d) with SMTP id QAA14118 for FE> ; Fri, 1 May 1998 16:51:16 -0700 (PDT FE>Received: from shoebox-greetings.pa.dec.com by pobox1.pa.dec.com FE> (5.65v3.2/1.1.10.5/07Nov97-1157AM) id AA21278; Fri, 1 May 1998 FE> 16:51:16 -0700 FE>Received: from localhost by shoebox-greetings.pa.dec.com; FE> (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/06Jun96-0357PM) id AA08953; Fri, 1 May 1998 FE> 16:51:15 -0700 FE>X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.9 8/22/96 FE>X-Mts: smtp FE>Message-ID: <9805012351.AA08953@shoebox-greetings.pa.dec.com> FE>Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 16:51:15 -0700 FE>Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" FE> FE>Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" FE> FE>From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah FE>Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Angels and Wings FE>To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU FE>In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 01 May 98 19:28:30 CDT." FE> <009C58BF.C972BCC0.22@dragon.com> FE>I always admired the cherubim and seraphim in, I believe, the 3rd Madeline FE>L'Engle book, "A Wind In The Door". They sure weren't human. In fact, I have FE>vague memory of Mrs. Who, Which & Whatsit (from A Wrinkle In Time) being FE>angels, although I think they were claiming that they term "angels" was FE>something of a metaphor. FE>I don't know whether I'd call those books feminist, because I think in many FE>ways they use traditional patterns of male/female interaction. On the other FE>hand, I suspect it was much more radical in 1962 to have your main character FE>be strong, competent women who were brilliant at math and science. And then FE>teach that sort of thing to children! FE>jessie Hmmmm, well perhaps Feminist would be appropriate to those works because they did portray females as strong and competant and able to handle tough situations...as with all definitions, the word "Feminist" alone to me represents such attributes. Now the works having "angel-like" characters in them, may put the book into a "fantasy" context, as a category, but then again I hate labeling or categorizing things not all things fit into their respective slots so readily grin. And I hope this thread of thought does not turn into another Gender Difference talk we must sink our perverbial teeth into Feminist sci-Fi works grin. Take care, Jo Ann ----------------------------------------------------- Silent Running BBS, Riverside, California. 2 MajorMUD games, 3 LORD games and 2 Tradewars games WWW.Silent-Running.com / telent silent-running.com 909-343-2030 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 22:07:11 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cindy Smith Subject: Re: Angels and Wings I think the L'Engle book you're thinking of is the fourth one in the series, "Many Waters," in which Sandy and Dennys (the twins) go back in time to the days of Noah. The Seraphim were good angels, whereas she portrayed the "scarabs" (?) as evil angels who were the same as the "sons of God" who had intercourse with the daughters of men in Genesis 6:2 and 6:4. Oh, yes, they were called "Nephilim" in L'Engle's book. It's unclear in the Bible whether the Nephilim were good or evil, but I believe L'Engle portrays the Nephilim as evil. Has anyone read the book recently enough to remember? As I recall, the ArchAngel Michael shows up. As to feminism, I think L'Engle has an attitude that good women keep neat houses, whereas evil women keep untidy houses, as that is the way women are portrayed in the novel. I have a mousewife picture on my refrigerator door who is sweeping dirt under a rug and saying, "Dull women have immaculate homes." Cindy Smith Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\ _\\\_ _///_ // >IXOYE=('> <`)= _<< A Real Live Catholic in Georgia cms@dragon.com // /// \\\ \\ Delay not your conversion to the LORD, Put it not off from day to day Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8 Read the mailing list Bible@dragon.com Read the mailing list Literature@dragon.com Read the mailing list nt-trans@dragon.com (Greek New Testament) Read the mailing list ot-trans@dragon.com (Hebrew Old Testament) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 23:48:22 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: X-Files: Sex with angels In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 1 May 1998, Lurima wrote: > I believe that angels are resurrected humans. They've already been humans on > Earth; now they're in a different state of existence, with more powers and > abilities and knowledge than they had as mere Earthlings. But they're still > themselves. When I was a kid, I often had fantasies about becoming a ghost after death. It still seems pretty attractive: you can fly, walk though walls, and be invisible. But the main thing is, you get a chance to explore the world without having to deal with humans. Because in real world, being a female means that you can never be safe by yourself. Basically, half of the world is closed to you because of the danger of rape, abuse, harassment, and all kind of stuff that you won't even have a right to protect yourself from, because "since you went there, you were asking for it". And the other half is closed to you because it's "not appropriate for women". Even if you are a particularly stubborn individual who believes that the meaningless rules are invented to be broken, you'll spend most of the time either defending yourself from those who consider you "fair game", since you've entered the territory forbidden for females, or explaining to the world why is it that you wanted to go there at the first place, and why you don't think that "women can't do it" like everyone else believes. As a result, there is very little chance to actually do anything you might have went there for. When you are a ghost, you are pretty much safe. You don't have a body, so you cannot be raped. And if someone gets on your nerves, you can scare the living hell out of him without getting legal problems. So, you can go anywhere you want. Because you are safe. And free. Being an angel must be pretty close to that. Except, for what I understand, they spend quite a bit of time delivering messages to various prophets and protecting children and idiots from danger. They also seem to have some kind of class hierarchy by power and significance, which seems a lot less attractive to me. Finally, if angels are also divided into males and females, I am withdrawing my application. I've got enough of the gender/power issues in this world. If it continues in the next one, I'd rather stick to being a ghost, where you don't have to report to anyone nor communicate with anyone if you don't want to. On the positive side, I have a reason to believe that angels are sexless (thanks God!). It's very simple: if you live forever, you don't have to reproduce. Think what would happened if people stopped dying. Reproduction is a way to replace those who are gone. If you are immortal, there is no point to do so. If you don't have to reproduce, you don't need sexual organs (which was their origional purpose, before humans started using them as merits of strength and intelligence). No sex organs = no gender = no gender differences = absense of all the crap that comes with them. There is a place in Bible where Jesus gets a question about a woman who had seven husbands, all of whom had died. The question was, whose wife she was going to be in "another world". The answer was "no one's" because in another world you are not going to be men and women, but "like angels". I don't think it's boring. I think it's cool for once having your existance not to be defined by which set of organs you've got between your legs. By the way, there is a nice story about angels (or what they could be) by Tiptree, Jr., written not long before she killed herself. Anyone remembers the title? Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 01:14:13 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: ME Hunter Subject: Re: Angels and Wings In-Reply-To: <009C58D5.F472B9A0.2@dragon.com> (message from Cindy Smith on Fri, 1 May 1998 22:07:11 -0500) Hunh....Cindy, I'd have to say that you haven't read enough L'Engle. Jessie was definitely talking about _The Wind in the Door_ in which one of the main characters is a cherubim (yes, it's plural) and takes Meg, Calvin and Charles Wallace through time & space. As it happens, I think _Many Waters_ is L'Engle's worst book. I general I find L'Engle's work to be very feminist. E. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 14:09:09 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: random comments ... >May we consider Alice a feminist heroine of speculative fiction? There is a poem by Robert Graves about 'That prime heroine of our nation, Alice'. It's certainly a subversive work--all those parodies of improving poems for children. And equally certainly far from deferential towards authority figures: though interestingly it tends to be the women (Queen of Hearts, Red Queen) who are fierce dominating figures, and the kings rather dithery or vague (or asleep). Though the Caterpillar and Humpty Dumpty are bossy enough. I'm not sure I'd call it feminist except insofar as it subverts conventional sugary notions of what a little girl is like... and as I've suggested, its subversion goes a good deal further than gender expectations. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 14:03:19 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: angels >Has anyone written a work under Feminist Sci-Fi that has angel-type >beings for protagonists? just wondering 8) There is a book called something like _Angel Island_, by someone whose name I don't recall (?Inez something), originally written, if not published, in the late C19th or early C20th, about men who discover an island inhabited by winged women. They can't deal with it and try and get the women to cut off their wings. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 10:07:33 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sharon Anderson Subject: Joanna Russ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Two brief things: 1) I hope I interpreted correctly, that Tepper's Gibbon's Decline and Fall is really and truly nominated. If not, I'd like to nominate it. I just finished it. Tepper just keeps on getting better and better and better, with every book. 2) "I think the biggest obstacle to discussing WAWFF as a group is not its non-fiction status, but rather it's rather hefty US$27.95 price. Even with the MG discount, it's still $23.76. However, I think perhaps we could have an informal discussion of it among those list members who do get it. Also, I think we may want to give people a while to read it -- I'm probably going to continue to read my copy in "dip" mode, rather than in a straightforward fashion, so I would think that it'll be several months before I'll be ready to discuss it." Yes, please. Joanna, thank you for coming up with some new print for those of us who have been starving for your work. If I were wealthy enough, and able enough, I'd willingly become a Russ groupie. As with most of her essays, this one is heavy going. It will take me some time, too, to finish it. I am heartily enjoying it, however. I would dearly love to see a discussion of it...in a couple of months. Sharon Anderson ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 11:30:56 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cindy Smith Subject: Re: Angels and Wings Well, I guess it's too many years since I read _A Wind in the Door_, but I thought it was quite boring. The technical descriptions of the mitochondria became tedious. I thought it was her worst book. I liked _A Swiftly Tilting Planet_ much better. I thought _Many Water_ was okay, but certainly not her best. Her non-fiction is not riveting. Cindy Smith Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\ _\\\_ _///_ // >IXOYE=('> <`)= _<< A Real Live Catholic in Georgia cms@dragon.com // /// \\\ \\ Delay not your conversion to the LORD, Put it not off from day to day Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8 Read the mailing list Bible@dragon.com Read the mailing list Literature@dragon.com Read the mailing list nt-trans@dragon.com (Greek New Testament) Read the mailing list ot-trans@dragon.com (Hebrew Old Testament) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 11:41:11 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: joe santini Subject: Re: Angels and Wings In-Reply-To: <009C5946.3C650AE0.6@dragon.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" WHAT technical descriptions of mitochondria? i thought the _fantastic_ descriptions of the intra-mitochondrial worlds (which were, as far as I know, complete fiction_ were beautiful. Also, I think Many Waters is one of her more beautiful books. But then I read it when I was very young, so it was one of my first science fiction novels... also, A Swiftly Tilting Planet, while not exactly feminist, although containing VERY strongly feminist characters, is charming. At 11:30 diem 5/2/98 -0500, you wrote: >Well, I guess it's too many years since I read _A Wind in the Door_, but >I thought it was quite boring. The technical descriptions of the >mitochondria became tedious. I thought it was her worst book. I liked >_A Swiftly Tilting Planet_ much better. I thought _Many Water_ was okay, >but certainly not her best. Her non-fiction is not riveting. > > > >Cindy Smith > Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter >GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\ _\\\_ _///_ // > >IXOYE=('> <`)= _<< A Real Live Catholic in Georgia >cms@dragon.com // /// \\\ \\ > >Delay not your conversion to the LORD, >Put it not off from day to day > Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8 > >Read the mailing list Bible@dragon.com >Read the mailing list Literature@dragon.com >Read the mailing list nt-trans@dragon.com (Greek New Testament) >Read the mailing list ot-trans@dragon.com (Hebrew Old Testament) > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Have you no respect for the past? For what was thought and believed by your foremothers?" "Why, no," she said. "Why should we? They are all gone. They knew less than we do. If we are not beyond them, we are unworthy of them--and unworthy of the children who must go beyond us." -Charlotte Gilman, "Herland" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * joseph santini haverford college '01 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 13:05:27 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: Re: off-topic Women/fighting gender difference Hi folks! > > Men certainly have higher levels of displayed violence - there's no arguing > that. Whether this is a result of their general greater strength (as > compared to women), or some nasty little characteristic carried on the Y > chromosome, or of cultural training (not to be underestimated, in my > opinion) is still very much an open question as far as I can tell. > (TIC) Some friends and I have decided it is not something ON the Y chromosome, it is something missing. Y X { see! the Y is missing the extra leg! :->). We call it that ol' mutant Y chromosome. (Also, the molecular weight is less in the Y chromosome). On a more serious note: It is fairly accepted in the scientific community that both genetics and cultural training directly lead to our behavior as children and adults...most theories in science tend to be amalgamations of several theories and/or facts. Having a pretty strong propensity for violence myself (something I am not particularly proud of), it is clear to me after 15 years of therapy and some serious self-analysis that this undesirable personality trait could have been curbed earlier had I been raised in the "right" environment, but as it turned out I became quite like my Mother (whom I love dearly but she often deferred to violent fits of rage with my siblings and I), and these fits often included physical violence against us (and sometimes inanimate objects). I NEVER saw my Father behave this way. He was an escaped U.S. POW in Germany during the Battle of the Bulge and actually told me of the time he had to kill a German soldier in a farmhouse my Father and his buddy had taken shelter in after they escaped. He really did not want to kill him, but the German soldier had managed to get Dad's buddy's finger in his mouth (as he tried to cover it) and was biting down (there were other soldiers upstairs in the house), so my Dad hit the German soldier in the head. But when my Father spoke of this, it was apparent he took no pleasure in it. He was simply "doing his duty", and it was a duty he took right serious-like (oops! Southern slang slip...). I truly think he felt "bad" about it, but having the high school equivalency of an eighth grade level education, I don't think he had the words to express his true feelings at the time nor did he really want to think about it too much. I can say honestly and with some certainty my Mother was more violent than my Father, and that I tended to follow that behavior until I sought professional help. The feelings of rage still occur, but less often and now I have ways of dealing with it without breaking things. I know had this training begun a lot earlier my struggles with my violent nature would have taken less time, less money, and less energy. So, as we all know there are lots of exceptions to every "Generally...". But I certainly know MANY women with the capabilities of being violent and/or the ability to be an EXCELLENT soldier. (Also, I don't believe the capacity for violence NECESSARILY makes a good soldier...self-control, a strong sense of duty, determination and other qualities I can see as a MUST!) Penny ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 10:19:43 -0700 Reply-To: ltimmel@halcyon.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "L. Timmel Duchamp" Subject: Re: angels MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lesley Hall wrote: > > There is a book called something like _Angel Island_, by someone whose name I > don't recall (?Inez something), originally written, if not published, in the > late C19th or early C20th, about men who discover an island inhabited by > winged women. They can't deal with it and try and get the women to cut off > their wings. This is by Inez Haynes Gillmore (1873-1970), a suffragist, and was first published in 1914. I enjoyed this novel-- but could not love it because I felt frustrated by the ultimate submission of these free & powerful creatures to patriarchy-- with all hope and intention lying in their sacrificing themselves to their daughters' possibility for freedom. (My frustration was due largely to the author's having subscribed to certain stereotypical assumptions about women, which allowed their captors to divide & conquer them.) The novel was reprinted by New American Library in 1988, so there may be copies floating around in used bookstores... Timmi Duchamp http://www.halcyon.com/ltimmel/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 01:11:56 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Great news MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I just heard some great news ... Our own Vonda McIntyre won the Nebula Award for her novel THE MOON AND THE SUN. Congratulations to Vonda! I get this listserv as a digest, so if someone else has already posted the news, my apologies for repeating it. But I was so pleased, I couldn't resist. It was a great ballot this year, all good stories. The rest of the winners are ... Novella: "Abandon in Place", Jerry Oltion Novelette: "The Flowers of Aulit Prison", Nancy Kress Short Story: "Sister Emily's Lightship", Jane Yolen Grandmaster: Poul Anderson Service to SFWA: Robin Wayne Bailey Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 12:11:54 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: angels Timmi Duchamp wrote, re Gilmore's _Angel Island_ (1914) >(My frustration was due largely to the author's having subscribed to certain >stereotypical assumptions about women, which allowed their captors to >divide & conquer them.) I assumed that this was in fact meant to be an allegory of the way women let themselves be lessened in contemporary society by having their strengths (wings) cut off: oppression which they passed on to their daughters. What was also rather chilling was the way she presented the different strategies employed by the men to persuade the winged women that they'd be happier wingless. >The novel was reprinted by New American Library in 1988, so there may be >copies floating around in used bookstores... I must have this, but can't readily find it among the many piles of books lying on my floor! Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 15:08:03 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Anthea Subject: "To write like a woman : essays..." In-Reply-To: <98549bd9.353c0fe2@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hello all A few weeks ago, some one on the list recommended that I read Joanna Russ' book "To write like a woman : essays in feminism and science fiction" in view of my comments on Ellison's "A boy and his dog". I collected the book yesterday morning and found I could barely bear put it down once I started. I finished it this morning. The book has probably been discussed a thousand times before on this list, but I'd be grateful for comments on it (if it's a contentious subject, private email would be welcome). I'm really looking forward to reading her new book. AJ ----------------------------------------- gaudit@global.co.za ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 08:00:35 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Vonda WON the NEBULA!!! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The Nebula Winners are: Writer Emeritus: Nelson S. Bond Service Award: Robin Wayne Bailey Short Story: Jane Yolen, "Sister Emily's Lightship" Novelette: Nancy Kress, "The Flowers of Aulit Prison" Novella: Jerry Oltion, "Abandon in Place" Novel: Vonda McIntyre, _The Moon and the Sun_ Woohoo!!! And she told me months ago she didn't even think she'd make the short list of finalists!! Yay, Vonda!! Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 08:14:47 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Joanna Russ : WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR? Comments: cc: shander@CDSNET.NET, donnaneely@earthlink.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sharon, Donna et al: Donna and I had thought about discussing WAWFF in bits and piees, either on list or off. She suggested several alternatives: >I would love to have an informal discussion arrangement. And yes, bit by >bit would be best >I think. Each essay would provoke as much discussion as any one book, I >would imagine. >Maybe conquer one every couple of months? Wouldn't it be fun to arrange a >"live chat" >about each essay? Or maybe we could create an "online APA". Each person >appends a file or >clips their comments to the message and we route it to the next person or >route to all of >us (multiple addresses) each time someone adds a bit. Or maybe we could >use someone's web >page space for an online comments page that we maintain through the >discussion then >archive when we're done and start the next one. Then folks could go to it >whenever and >wouldn't be holding up "progress". I have web page space at Earthlink, >though I have >never done one. Maybe it is time to learn ;-). So there is definitely interest, we just need to determine how and when to start, it seems to me. Pax, Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 12:33:44 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Re: Joanna Russ : WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR? Comments: To: Maryelizabeth Hart Comments: cc: shander@cdsnet.net, gaudit@global.co.za, FEM-SF MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sharon, Maryelizabeth, Anthea, et al> >>.....an informal discussion arrangement. And yes, bit by bit ....... to arrange a "live chat" .... Or maybe we could create an "online APA"......use web page space for an online comments page that we maintain through the discussion.....yadda yadda.....>> >So there is definitely interest, we just need to determine how and when to start, it seems to me. Pax, Maryelizabeth> And Anthea, based on your morning's post, are you another potential member of the Underground Cabal Reading Russ (UCRR)? We could probably hit some of the essays from _To Write..._ while Donna (fuming foot tapping here) waits for her copy of _....Fighting For_ . Hmmmm...have to come up with a more clever title so we have a better acronym........Outspoken Groupies of Russ' Essays (OGREs) or perhaps Happy Acolytes to Russ' Periodic Incredible Essay Submissions (HARPIES) or Crabby Russ Old-timers Needing Essays to Survive (CRONES)?????? At any rate, I am going to press on with checking out my web page options at Earthlink. (I have really enjoyed how the Omni Salon zine has used that platform for the shared stories effort.) Just in case we REALLY want to do this someday. ;-) RePax, Donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 14:15:21 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Melnjo Subject: Re: Joanna Russ : WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi Donna; I'm new to the list, but a long time Russ fan, alright - longer than I want to admit. If the Russ discussion goes live, I'd love to be included. I favor CRONES, in fact, I like it a lot. If this thread continues on this list, I'll be able to follow it. But if it moves---. So do please keep me posted, even tho I'm a newbie? Thanks. I'm so glad I finally found you all. Mary-Ellen Maynard Crystal Mist Glass Carving Guffey, CO ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 12:31:14 -0700 Reply-To: ltimmel@halcyon.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "L. Timmel Duchamp" Subject: Re: Gillmore's _Angel Island_ (was: [*FSFFU*] angels) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lesley Hall wrote: > I assumed that this was in fact meant to be an allegory of the way women let > themselves be lessened in contemporary society by having their strengths > (wings) cut off: oppression which they passed on to their daughters. What was > also rather chilling was the way she presented the different strategies > employed by the men to persuade the winged women that they'd be happier > wingless. Chilling, yes, but for me also frustrating. As I'm halfway through the new Russ book, I'm inclined to attribute this frustration to impatience with the author for not having understood how deeply she had bought into cultural arguments explaining women's oppression. (Russ might even say Gillmore couldn't have been reading Russ's hero of heroes, Matilda Joslyn Gage!) In a note to Chapter Eight ("Seeing Red"), Russ writes: "As Delphy puts it, `to say that ideology acts on reality is one thing,' but to say that ideology-- language, schooling, socialization, all come under this heading-- *causes* reality *all by itself* leaves up in the air the very important matter of what *causes* language, schooling, socialization, and so on. Ideology (says Delphy, and I agree) cannot be the ultimate cause of anything since this `implies that ideology is *its own cause*.' To accept this is to fall back into a theory of culture as totally arbitrary, i.e., that `social structure is produced by ideas, which are themselves produced by nothing.' Such a belief, which is the dominant ideology of our society, can only describe a static situation in which patriarchy causes socialization etc., and socialization etc causes patriarchy in an endless, unchanging loop. Some feminists have proposed this analysis-- or rather, this lack of analysis-- of patriarchy." Following Russ's point, then, it makes no sense that four free, powerful creatures can be trapped by the ideology of the four human males, & that ideology can work to twist them inside out. That it does implies that there is something biologically hardwired in female creatures (human or otherwise) to make them fall for such claptrap. Thus, my frustration, because I think this is where the book goes wrong. Ever since I read _Angel Island_, by the way, I've had an urge to rewrite the story-- without the "angels" succumbing to ideology that would be meaningless to anyone who hadn't been raised in it from birth. Timmi Duchamp ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 20:01:22 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Gillmore's _Angel Island_ (was: [*FSFFU*] angels) >Chilling, yes, but for me also frustrating. As I'm halfway through the >new Russ book, I'm inclined to attribute this frustration to impatience >with the author for not having understood how deeply she had bought into >cultural arguments explaining women's oppression. (Russ might even say >Gillmore couldn't have been reading Russ's hero of heroes, Matilda >Joslyn Gage!) Ideas about innate difference were part and parcel of the first wave of feminism (not entirely and unequivocally, as your reference to Gage indicates, but to a very great extent). The ideas about women being more emotional and capable of love/affection, naturally moral etc, while they could be turned on their head and given a different value so that women came out superior in a binary scheme of division of human qualities, were still dangerous ideas. Charlotte Perkins Gilman's _Herland_ it seems to me also falls into some of the same traps: although the women of Herland are not reduced and enslaved as are the women of Angel Island, the book still 'buys in' to a construction of women as essentially maternal and morally superior which could have pernicious payoffs (e.g. see Lucy Bland's _Banishing the Beast: English Feminism and Sexual Morality 1880-1914_ for the ways in which a 'social purity' feminism using a maternal rhetoric and with an agenda of morally cleansing society could be highly oppressive along lines of class and ethnicity). While some late C19th/early C20th feminists were clearly using ideas of either difference or similarity strategically (women were different from men and therefore could not be politically represented by them, therefore should have the vote; women were as capable as men of rational thought and understanding and therefore should have the vote) others were, as Gilmore seems to have been (though this begs the question of how far _Angel Island_ was a thought-experiment rather than the expression of deeply-held views on female nature) committed to ideas of innate essentialist difference. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 19:43:59 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: joe santini Subject: Re: Gillmore's _Angel Island_ (was: [*FSFFU*] angels) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I believe the differences between Angel Island and Herland (I havent read Angel, so correct me if I'm wrong) is that the women in Angel were left alone all their lives, while in Herland they constructed a new society based on what they had before their men died out. (It reminded me of Whileaway's society a little, except I felt that Whileaway was more realistic. But anyway.) In Herland women were given by their Goddess the ability to have children as an automatic function; thus I think it became almost inevitable that their religion and social construction were based on that. Still I found it hard to believe that there wasn't a war-like group like the *Far Dareis Mai* in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time books or dueling constructions like in The Female Man; the entire society was peaceful and benevolent. Still they managed to keep themselves non-subjective to the visiting men, although they claimed awe and wonder at their supposedly "great society." At 08:01 nox 5/3/98 UT, you wrote: > >Chilling, yes, but for me also frustrating. As I'm halfway through the > >new Russ book, I'm inclined to attribute this frustration to impatience > >with the author for not having understood how deeply she had bought into > >cultural arguments explaining women's oppression. (Russ might even say > >Gillmore couldn't have been reading Russ's hero of heroes, Matilda > >Joslyn Gage!) > >Ideas about innate difference were part and parcel of the first wave of >feminism (not entirely and unequivocally, as your reference to Gage indicates, >but to a very great extent). The ideas about women being more emotional and >capable of love/affection, naturally moral etc, while they could be turned on >their head and given a different value so that women came out superior in a >binary scheme of division of human qualities, were still dangerous ideas. >Charlotte Perkins Gilman's _Herland_ it seems to me also falls into some of >the same traps: although the women of Herland are not reduced and enslaved as >are the women of Angel Island, the book still 'buys in' to a construction of >women as essentially maternal and morally superior which could have >pernicious payoffs (e.g. see Lucy Bland's _Banishing the Beast: English >Feminism and Sexual Morality 1880-1914_ for the ways in which a 'social >purity' feminism using a maternal rhetoric and with an agenda of morally >cleansing society could be highly oppressive along lines of class and >ethnicity). > While some late C19th/early C20th feminists were clearly using ideas of >either difference or similarity strategically (women were different from men >and therefore could not be politically represented by them, therefore should >have the vote; women were as capable as men of rational thought and >understanding and therefore should have the vote) others were, as Gilmore >seems to have been (though this begs the question of how far _Angel Island_ >was a thought-experiment rather than the expression of deeply-held views on >female nature) committed to ideas of innate essentialist difference. >Lesley >Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Have you no respect for the past? For what was thought and believed by your foremothers?" "Why, no," she said. "Why should we? They are all gone. They knew less than we do. If we are not beyond them, we are unworthy of them--and unworthy of the children who must go beyond us." -Charlotte Gilman, "Herland" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * joseph santini haverford college '01 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 06:51:10 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Anthea Subject: Re: Joanna Russ : WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR? In-Reply-To: <001e01bd76b1$409c0e60$35ae2499@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 3 May 98 at 12:33, donna simone wrote: > And Anthea, based on your morning's post, are you another potential > member of the Underground Cabal Reading Russ (UCRR)? We could > probably hit some of the essays from _To Write..._ while Donna > (fuming foot tapping here) waits for her copy of _....Fighting For_ > . Hmmmm...have to come up with a more clever title so we have a > better acronym........Outspoken Groupies of Russ' Essays (OGREs) or > perhaps Happy Acolytes to Russ' Periodic Incredible Essay > Submissions (HARPIES) or Crabby Russ Old-timers Needing Essays to > Survive (CRONES)?????? Sign me up - effective yesterday. "To Write..." was the first 'serious' book of Joanna Russ' that I'd read (hangs head in shame) and I was greatly impressed. I'm getting "The Female Man" on Wednesday Would someone PLEASE let me know the instant the book is published! We normally use Amazon.com, but haven't found it that effective of late. So I'm going to get someone in our New York office to buy it and ship it over by DHL courier. With any luck I should have it two days (at the most) after it appears in the bookstores. AJ ----------------------------------------- gaudit@global.co.za ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 23:52:43 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joslyn Grassby Subject: BDG Halfway Human Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------2C2276878A5EC78800A09FE6" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------2C2276878A5EC78800A09FE6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------2C2276878A5EC78800A09FE6 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <354D5EC9.B1DEC0BA@nlc-bnc.ca> Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 23:23:07 -0700 From: Joslyn Grassby X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: feministsf@listserv.uic.ecu Subject: BDG Halfway Human Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The purpose of this message is to initiate discussion of Carolyn Ives Gilman's book, "Halfway Human", (1998). Jennifer Krauel asked me to make some prefatory remarks: they are below. One caveat, however. Although I have read the book with pleasure and admiration, it was a reading for enjoyment and not the kind of close reading necessary for comment. I am busy rereading it, but because of the pressure of work and other commitments, I am only about a third of the way through this second reading. As a result, the comments below are on that portion and I will post more in a few days. And, please assume that the statements below all have an IMHO affixed. "Halfway Human" is the story of Tedla Galele, a neuter, or "bland" from the planet Gamma Discipulis, or Gammadis. The story opens with it found bleeding from a suicide attempt in an alley on the planet Capella. The book alternates between omnisicient narrator portions on Capella and Tedla's first person narrative of her life on Gammadis and how she escaped that planet. Tedla throughout is referred to as "it", a usage I found very unsettling. To use the term "it" and yet to be referring to a human, very effectively sets up a dissonance that keeps the reader alert and uncomfortable. And it is in many ways an uncomfortable book. Children on Gammadis are sexually undifferentiated until the age of about twelve when they "become human", i.e., either male or female. If they remain neuter, they have somehow failed to become human, and are relegated to a life of of drudgery, whether farm work, cooking, cleaning or serving. They live in mean warrens apart from humans. The conditioning of the children prior to their change leads them, for the most part, to ignore blands or even to despise and bully them (although it is the blands who take care of them). Tedla, early on, seems somewhat different from other chldren in that she genuinely cares for a bland who ensured that she received medical care when Tedla was seriously ill. Yet even Tedla joins another child in pelting this same bland with mud balls and calling it names. A good deal of the children's aggression toward blands seems to be inspired by fear. Fear of their coming change, fear that they might end up a bland, fear of caring for someone who is--not human. The children all "know" that blands are dull, stupid and unable to feel any real emotion. We see the strength of their conditioning in the woeful self-image Tedla has, even after twelve years away from Gammadis. She remains convinced that she is stupid, subhuman and incapable of love (and I found this a bit overdone). There are early hints that "becoming human" on Gammadis may not be a question of physiology and may not be random. When, at the coming-of-age process (hardly a ceremony), Tedla is assigned the tag that will identify her as a bland, one clerk remarks "I thought the rate was going down" and another replies, "Not today it isn't". As we see more of Gammadis society, we realize that the existence of an underclass is an economic necessity. To have a large number of people whose labour is available for only the cost of feeding and housing them badly, is to enable the rest of Gammadis society to live very well indeed. There is some very interesting world-building in the novel. Gammadis is a beautiful world but people live underground and describe their guilty past when they exploited and polluted their planet. There is no record of their being part of a human diaspora that has colonized so many worlds, yet they are clearly human, although they may have taken a somewhat different evolutionary path. Gammadis is to all intents and purposes a slave-owning society. Gilman draws a picture of a society declining in numbers, one with all the nervousness that goes with knowing there are large numbers of blands who might possibly (despite their proclaimed apathy and stupidity) become disaffected with their lot. The consequence, of course, is harsh treatment and immediate violent suppression of anything that even looks like disobedience. Capella, on the other hand, has been terraformed and its business, and major export, is information. Scholars find they have a thin time of it unless they join one of the large information houses who then, of course, have the rights to all their work. Very little information is available for free: the information houses control access effectively even though one would expect in a society dedicated to information, that the media (the nets) would be as skilled as any in digging out facts. Gilman, on Gammadis, sets up a society based on the proposition that to be human is to have gender. And if you are neuter, you are not human, and since you are not human, there is no need to treat you humanely. It is clear that Gammadis society has not really changed from its exploitative past: they merely take much better care of their planet now than of their blands. Capella is probably as exploitative a society but there is still room for the intelligent and principled to make their way. But it is tough and it is risky. Things the novel makes me wonder about: 1. What would a person be like with no gender for the first twelve years of its life and then a rapid maturation process as either a man or a woman? 2. What does it mean to be "halfway human"? Is one not born human? Does one achieve humanity? Or, is humanity thrust upon one? Joslyn Grassby --------------2C2276878A5EC78800A09FE6-- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 22:11:50 -0700 Reply-To: ltimmel@halcyon.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "L. Timmel Duchamp" Subject: Re: Joanna Russ : WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Anthea wrote: > > > Would someone PLEASE let me know the instant the book is published! We > normally use Amazon.com, but haven't found it that effective of late. > So I'm going to get someone in our New York office to buy it and ship > it over by DHL courier. With any luck I should have it two days (at > the most) after it appears in the bookstores. > It appeared in Seattle bookstores a couple of weeks ago. (I'm reading it now.) Publication date is March, 1998. From St. Martin's Press. Timmi Duchamp ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 11:58:46 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cindy Smith Subject: Re: Angels and Wings Comments: To: ldqt79a@prodigy.com >From: MX%"LDQT79A@prodigy.com" " DAVID CHRISTENSON" 4-MAY-1998 11:07:00.09 >To: MX%"cms@dragon.com" >Subj: Re: [*FSFFU*] Angels and Wings > >An off-list inquiry: > >> The word "feet" is a euphemism in Hebrew for the male sexual >> organ. Thus, "to bathe your feet" means to engage in sexual >intercourse and >> "to cover your feet" means to urinate. > >Sooo.... Are you telling me that when Mary Magdalene "bathed the feet" >of Jesus, they were - you know - "bathing his feet," as it were? Yikes! Actually, yes, the passage in Luke 7:36-50 contains very sexual imagery. When the woman "bathes his feet with her tears," this is an example of foreplay. This is the precise reason why the Pharisee is shocked and says, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner" (7:39). Jesus then forgives the woman for behaving sexually towards him by saying that she loves much and "the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little" (v 47). Incidentally, there's no indication that this is Mary Magdalene; it's an unknown woman. Also, the incident is completely different from the Anointing at Bethany in which a woman (Mary, Martha's sister, I believe) anoints Jesus's feet with costly nard in preparation for his burial. There are feminist theologians who theorize that the reason why Mary Magdalene is frequently equated with the sinful woman or portrayed as a reformed prostitute (neither of which is true) is probably because men fear a woman who holds power and Mary Magdalene held a position of power as one of Jesus's close disciples and a woman of authority in the early Christian Church after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Several passages in the New Testament restrict the power and authority of women, and this is a strong indication that many women held positions of power and authority in the early Christian church. As Christianity became less a radical movement and more a conventional religion, women lost power and editorial notes were inserted into New Testament texts which restricted the power and authority of women. As a rule, if something is prohibited, it usually means the practice being prohibited was a problem, and if a problem then common. >-- >David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com >-- >David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com >"Never eat more than you can lift." - Miss Piggy Cindy Smith Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\ _\\\_ _///_ // >IXOYE=('> <`)= _<< A Real Live Catholic in Georgia cms@dragon.com // /// \\\ \\ Delay not your conversion to the LORD, Put it not off from day to day Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8 Read the mailing list Bible@dragon.com Read the mailing list Literature@dragon.com Read the mailing list nt-trans@dragon.com (Greek New Testament) Read the mailing list ot-trans@dragon.com (Hebrew Old Testament) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 12:17:55 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allen Briggs Subject: Re: Angels and Wings Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Although I think it's technically in the Mystery genre (and thus not quite on topic, although I think it fits into SF somewhat and is at the least more feminist than many...), I much enjoyed reading Katherine Neville's _The Magic Circle_. It has a bit of retelling of Jesus's last days and some correspondance between Joseph of A. and Mary Magdalene. It was a new take on it to me, but I'm rather ignorant on this topic... More on topic, has anyone read _Acorna_ by McCaffery and (blast, can't recall at the moment)? I'm curious what others might have thought about it from a feminist perspective... -allen -- Allen Briggs - briggs@ninthwonder.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 13:54:57 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Subject: Re: Connie Willis: Not To Mention The Dog Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit The Writer's Digest Book Club has recently offered a book that tells you when many terms first came into general usage. (There is the OED, but I don't think I can read that small print any more even with the magnifying glass!) Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 14:08:28 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Subject: Re: cunning, innit? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-04-29 20:10:24 EDT, you write: << My only bug-bear with the use or mis-use of local idiom in fiction, is when Hollywood re-makes British authors, eg Fay Weldon or worse still, John Wyndham's classic sci-fi novels. >> Those of you who are British: I recently read in a Rosamond Pilcher novel about a character who lived in a "caravan." Can you tell me what that is? Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:31:19 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: cunning, innit? In-Reply-To: <1caa2acb.354e041d@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 4 May 1998, Lurima wrote: > Those of you who are British: I recently read in a Rosamond Pilcher novel > about a character who lived in a "caravan." Can you tell me what that is? > Americans call it a trailer.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 19:43:09 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Alison Page Subject: Living in a caravan MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barabara said - > Those of you who are British: I recently read in a Rosamond Pilcher novel > about a character who lived in a "caravan." Can you tell me what that is? What you call a trailer. Incidentally it is far rarer for poor people to live in 'trailer parks' in Britain than it seems to be in the USA. In many places caravan sites are only given planning permission if the people are not in 'permanent residence' - what this effectively means is that everyone is turfed out for one or two months a year and has to go and find somewhere else to live or be homeless, which I think is very cruel. The other people who live in caravans are 'travellers' (more or less equivalent to gypsies, though ethnically diverse) who live in caravans which are at least in principle on the move. Some stay for months or years in the same spot however. These 'sites' are generally illegal and with no services like clean water or sewage disposal. They are thus very dirty and insanitary places, and the travellers are generally disliked by locals. My sister used to have a job organising education for 'traveller' children. Finally some young unemployed homeless people emulate this type of lifestyle but with more of a hippy emphasis (I'm simplifying) and these are generally called 'new-age travellers', tend to be pagans, and get beaten up by the police. Alison ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 19:30:01 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: cunning, innit? >Those of you who are British: I recently read in a Rosamond Pilcher novel >about a character who lived in a "caravan." Can you tell me what that is? A 'trailer' in US-English. A mobile living space which could be hitched to a car or other motor vehicle, although 'caravan parks' of static ones used as holiday homes can be found in the vicinity of seaside resorts, etc. The more traditional sort was, of course, horse-drawn; like the one in which Mr Toad and friends took the fatal journey during which he encounter--'poop-poop'--the lure of the motorcar. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 16:29:57 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Subject: Re: Angels and Wings Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-05-01 19:31:50 EDT, you write: << The word "feet" is a euphemism in Hebrew for the male sexual organ. Thus, "to bathe your feet" means to engage in sexual intercourse and "to cover your feet" means to urinate. >> There's a reference in Isaiah I never understood--something about "The hair of the feet." H'mmm---- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 16:59:27 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Subject: Re: Vonda WON the NEBULA!!! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-05-03 11:01:05 EDT, you write: << Writer Emeritus: Nelson S. Bond Service Award: Robin Wayne Bailey Short Story: Jane Yolen, "Sister Emily's Lightship" Novelette: Nancy Kress, "The Flowers of Aulit Prison" Novella: Jerry Oltion, "Abandon in Place" Novel: Vonda McIntyre, _The Moon and the Sun_ >> I'm glad to see Nelson Bond's name. Twenty-some years ago, when I lived in Virginia, he used to hold meetings of aspiring SF writers in his home. I thought that was a kind and generous thing for him to do. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 22:07:21 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "M.J.Norman" Subject: Re: Sister Fidelma, Acorna and a question. Was Angels and Wings Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Although I think it's technically in the Mystery genre (and thus >not quite on topic, although I think it fits into SF somewhat and >is at the least more feminist than many...), I much enjoyed reading >Katherine Neville's _The Magic Circle_. It has a bit of retelling >of Jesus's last days and some correspondance between Joseph of A. >and Mary Magdalene. It was a new take on it to me, but I'm rather >ignorant on this topic... > I suppose this is getting a bit off-topic, but perhaps you'd enjoy reading Peter Tremayne's "Sister Fidelma" mysteries. The main character is a 7th century Irish 'nun' who is also qualified as a lawyer (or advocate). Tremayne seems to be quite knowledgable about early Irish society, Fidelma is a wonderful character and I find them fascinating. Trying to bring the subject back on topic, I have a hopeful question to put to the list. While teaching middle school in CA, I found a fantasy book in the school library, and thought it was wonderful. Of course, thinking I'd always be able to look at it again, I didn't bother to write down the title or author. Perhaps someone can help me out. It's about a young woman (can't remember her name) who travels around her land showing people what is in their minds. I think (but I'm not sure) they called her a 'soul-singer'. I don't know how else to explain it. Generally, either a person will ask her to look into their own mind, or a group of people who are being mistreated by someone will ask her to look into the miscreant's mind. By doing this she helps people see the truth of how their actions affect others and they begin to want to change their ways. I seem to also remember that sometimes they can't face the truth and go mad. Her profession was honoured and seen as a great benefit to others. I know it's not a lot of description, but does this book sound familiar to anyone? I'd really appreciate it if anyone could tell me the title, author and any other info they might know. Thanks, Monica mmnorman@macline.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 17:31:12 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cindy Smith Subject: Re: Angels and Wings >From: Lurima >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Angels and Wings >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > >In a message dated 98-05-01 19:31:50 EDT, you write: > ><< The word "feet" is a > euphemism in Hebrew for the male sexual organ. Thus, "to bathe your > feet" means to engage in sexual intercourse and "to cover your feet" > means to urinate. >> > >There's a reference in Isaiah I never understood--something about "The hair of >the feet." H'mmm---- Isaiah 7:20 (King James): "In the same day shall the Lord shave with a rasor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet (regel): and it shall also consume the beard." Isaiah 7:20 (New Jerusalem Bible): "That day the Lord will shave, with a razor hired from the other side of the River (with the king of Assyria), the head and the hair of the leg, and take off the beard, too." I think the NJB and the NAB use the word "leg" since "thigh" is often a euphemism for the penis as well. hence, in Genesis 24:2, Abraham tells a servant to place his hand on Abraham's "thigh" in order to swear an oath by his master's manhood. I think even today some men still swear by their "thighs" :-). Well, we're getting off topic, but to keep it on a feminist bent, there are many stories in the Bible that have elements of fantasy involving strong women characters. In fact, most of the Genesis stories probably originated in women's oral tradition, since many of them tend to favor the woman's point of view. Zipporah is a hero when she cuts off her son's foreskin, in an obscure passage in Exodus 4:24, and touches the feet (penis) of Moses, making him a "blood-bridegroom" with reference to the circumcision and saving his life since Yahweh wanted to kill him (presumably because he wasn't circumcised). There's a wonderful book you might want to take a look at sometime called ALL THE WOMEN IN THE BIBLE by Edith Deen (there are a number of books with similar titles) and the WOMEN'S BIBLE COMMENTARY. Unfortunately, neither one deals very much if at all with deuteroncanonical books of the Bible, so Judith, a tremendous heroine, gets short shrift, for example. One of my favorite Bible characters is Jael who invited her enemy Sisera, a general, to her tent, offered him milk and food, and then, while he was sleeping, hammered a tent peg through his temple. A fantasy-like story is when Elijah gives a magic (er, miraculous) jug to a starving woman and her son that pours milk continuously for a year. I also like stories in which the sons of women are raised from the dead (both Old Testament and New Testament) in recognition of the fact that women have no status and thus no means of survivial outside of prostitution without husbands or sons. Cindy Smith Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\ _\\\_ _///_ // >IXOYE=('> <`)= _<< A Real Live Catholic in Georgia cms@dragon.com // /// \\\ \\ Delay not your conversion to the LORD, Put it not off from day to day Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8 Read the mailing list Bible@dragon.com Read the mailing list Literature@dragon.com Read the mailing list nt-trans@dragon.com (Greek New Testament) Read the mailing list ot-trans@dragon.com (Hebrew Old Testament) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 13:52:29 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: Octavia Butler (fwd) Comments: To: -Fem-SF list , feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII octavia butler appearance alert ... Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 14:17:26 -0400 From: Meg Pearson To: lquilter@igc.apc.org Subject: Octavia Butler Octavia Butler will be appearing at the Smithosonian Institution in Washington, DC, later this summer. I thought you might be interested in mentioning this on your website. The information that follows this message is straight off our website: www.si.edu/tsa/aasc.com Thanks for your time. Drop me a note if you have questions! Meg Pearson The Smithsonian Associates **Octavia E. Butler, a Kindred Spirit So many would-be writers are afraid they don't have talent. I wrote, because it was the only thing I loved to do. --Octavia Butler Mon., June 22, 6 p.m. According to science fiction writer Octavia E. Butler, "your writing is an expression of your inner feelings and thoughts and beliefs in self. Rejection is so painful. It sounds as though you are personally being rejected, and, in a sense, you are..." In a rare East Coast public appearance, Ms. Butler talks about her writing career and the early influences that led her to write science fiction, and offers some helpful insights for aspiring writers. In celebration of the re-release of her book Kindred, Ms. Butler describes its main characters--Dana, a modern black woman mysteriously transported back in time to the antebellum South, and Rufus, the white son of a plantation owner rescued from drowning by Dana. She repeatedly returns to the plantation to protect Rufus and to ensure that he lives to father the daughter destined to be Dana's ancestor. Each return is longer and more dangerous, until Dana's life is in peril--long before it has even begun! Octavia Butler's other novels include Wild Seed, Parable of the Sower, and Bloodchild and Other Stories. She has won the Hugo Award and the Nebula Award, two of science fiction's highest honors. Kindred (Beacon) is available for signing after the lecture. Location: Marion & Gustave Ring Auditorium, Hirshhorn Museum & Sculpture Garden, Independence Ave. & 7th Street, SW Washington, DC ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 18:34:06 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: joe santini Subject: Re: Vonda WON the NEBULA!!! In-Reply-To: <5878d232.354e2c30@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Can someone give me definitions for these titles? Short story: what length? and so on. At 04:59 nox 5/4/98 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 98-05-03 11:01:05 EDT, you write: > ><< > Writer Emeritus: Nelson S. Bond > Service Award: Robin Wayne Bailey > Short Story: Jane Yolen, "Sister Emily's Lightship" > Novelette: Nancy Kress, "The Flowers of Aulit Prison" > Novella: Jerry Oltion, "Abandon in Place" > Novel: Vonda McIntyre, _The Moon and the Sun_ > >> >I'm glad to see Nelson Bond's name. Twenty-some years ago, when I lived in >Virginia, he used to hold meetings of aspiring SF writers in his home. I >thought that was a kind and generous thing for him to do. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Have you no respect for the past? For what was thought and believed by your foremothers?" "Why, no," she said. "Why should we? They are all gone. They knew less than we do. If we are not beyond them, we are unworthy of them--and unworthy of the children who must go beyond us." -Charlotte Gilman, "Herland" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * joseph santini haverford college '01 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 16:35:50 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kendra Smith Subject: Re: purpose of the list , Tepper In-Reply-To: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Thanks, Laura. All this discussion (which has been discussed ad > nauseam on this list already) of who can fight in a war or who cannot > is just boring, in my opinion. Let's discuss some SF! Who has read > the "The Family Tree" by Sheri Tepper? I'm a huge Tepper fan, but I > was really disappointed in this book. I found it overly preachy > about its environmental message, becoming so extreme it bordered on > satire, without ever overtly crossing into satire; this made the > whole novel just dumb, in my opinion. Which was too bad, because I > liked many of the characters and settings. Hello.... Your comment on Tepper really struck me (amidst all this talk of war). I am a HUGE fan of Tepper, and I have read (probably) every book of hers -except- "The Family Tree." I will have to read it, now, as I have not yet disliked any Tepper book I have read. Just out of curiosity, what did you think of "Beauty," "A Plague of Angels," and "After Long Silence?" Kendra Smith Tristesse7@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 21:45:38 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: ME Hunter Subject: Halfway Human Joslyn Grassby wrote: >The purpose of this message is to initiate discussion of Carolyn Ives >Gilman's book, "Halfway Human", (1998). Thanks, Joslyn. >Tedla throughout is referred to as "it", a usage I found very unsettling. >To use the term "it" and yet to be referring to a human, very effectively >sets up a dissonance that keeps the reader alert and uncomfortable. And it >is in many ways an uncomfortable book. I found it interesting that, having noted this, you then chose the feminine pronouns to refer to Tedla in your comments. While I think that there are many factors which do equate the role of blands on Gammadis to the traditional position of women here on earth, I think there are also a lot of parallels to interracial slavery, as well. I think it undermines Gilman's work to "make" Tedla female, narrowing it to a single implication. I think her attention to the pronouns, preventing the reader from settling into a single gender-role for Tedla, was one of the most interesting aspects of the book. I don't know about your edition, but the cover of the paperback I have shows a distinctly male face (I'm sitting here trying to see it as a woman and failing), which also annoyed me, based on what's inside. >She remains convinced that she is stupid, subhuman and incapable of love >(and I found this a bit overdone). I thought this was in keeping with Gilman's use of "it" throughout the book. I didn't think she was repeatedly making the same point, but consistently making the single point that Tedla did not consider itself human, ever. Even after it refused to use the "bland" dialect with the other Gammadians, the turning point when it realized it could never go back to being "just" a bland again, it still did not consider itself human. One interesting thing was that despite Tedla's frequent protestations that it was unlovable and wished it weren't physically attractive, it was the abandonment by its loved ones which drove it to suicide repeatedly. I thought it was also interesting that it defined humanity in terms of suicide as a form of "justification." This is a perspective on suicide I've seen in literature before, but which I've never quite been able to believe. It seems strange to me that an under-populated world would encourage its members to suicide. Or do you think that "valuable" members of society would never actually be allowed to do it, while unproductive, fringe members are pushed towards it? >Gammadis is to all intents and purposes a slave-owning society. Gilman >draws a picture of a society declining in numbers, one with all the >nervousness that goes with knowing there are large numbers of blands who >might possibly (despite their proclaimed apathy and stupidity) become >disaffected with their lot. The consequence, of course, is harsh treatment >and immediate violent suppression of anything that even looks like >disobedience. I found the range of attitudes towards blands very well-portrayed. The "humans" were simultaneously certain they could never organize enough to rebel and frightened lest they should. And even Tellegen, probably the most "liberal" figure we encounter, who allowed what others would have seen as gross disobedience on the part of his blands and argued for better treatment of blands in general, at best treated them like cherished pets, never as self-determining persons. >Capella, on the other hand, has been terraformed and its business, and >major export, is information. I wished we had gotten to see more of Capella Two, actually, particularly in terms of the sex roles. They seemed almost entirely equitable, from what we saw, and when Tedla suggested to Alain that they do a study of the "blands" on Capella Two it seemed to be suggesting a study along class lines, with no reference to sexual inequalities. But, as Gilman noted several times, we are much less comfortable turning the microscope on our own mores than we are in studying those we see as aliens. >1. What would a person be like with no gender for the first twelve >years of its life and then a rapid maturation process as either a man or >a woman? Gilman seemd to me to be suggesting that it would make bisexuality the norm and eliminate most of the social sex-linked differences in clothing, manner, profession, etc. which we see in our society. Basically, in creating the blands she seems to have merely moved the sex goalposts: on Gammadis there is no male/female duality, it is replaced by the human/bland schism. One of the things that fascinated me was that it was the *men* who consistently fell in love with/became sexually obsessed with and abusive of Tedla. I still can't decide what Gilman's point here was, but I can't help feeling that there was one. Overall, I really enjoyed this book. I found the characters generally engaging and felt the story moved along at a good pace. I felt that the background on the Capellan characters was rather forced, but Gilman obviously wanted to focus on Gammadis. E. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 13:36:34 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Le Comte Subject: Re: Living in a caravan In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 07:43 P 4/05/98 +0100, you wrote: >Barabara said - > >> Those of you who are British: I recently read in a Rosamond Pilcher novel >> about a character who lived in a "caravan." Can you tell me what that is? > >What you call a trailer. Incidentally it is far rarer for poor people to >live in 'trailer parks' in Britain than it seems to be in the USA. In many >places caravan sites are only given planning permission if the people are >not in 'permanent residence' - what this effectively means is that everyone >is turfed out for one or two months a year and has to go and find somewhere >else to live or be homeless, which I think is very cruel. Betty: Fay Weldon, a feminist UK writer, has used backdrops of british caravan style living in her books, particularly with regards to single mothers and their children. A couple of titles I recall : "Down Amongst the Women", and "Heart of the Country". Another one, is _Smiles and the Millennium_ by Miranda Miller, which is a futuristic sci-fi novel drawing on the scenario of expanding poverty, billowing out from caravan parks. Most of British Commonwealth countries call caravans, what Americans call 'trailers'. In Australia, they are even less likely to be used for poorer people's accommodation because of their relative expense. Most caravan parks, are located in high-tourist coastal areas - and as tourism is the second-highest income earner for Australia - it's not good business to have poverty rubbed in tourists faces. As with the UK - we prefer to hide our poor in "State housing", or what the UK call "council flats" or "estates". Australians call 'trailers' those small wheeled-towing trays, that hook onto vehicles' rear tow-bars - used for transporting garden rubbish to city dumps (what Australians call the "tip") or for moving house, or picking up furniture, hardware from the hardware store etc:) Renting an "on-site Van" at a holiday resort is relatively cheap family holiday accommodation, as it is cheaper than renting in ascending order of expense: a cabin, motel/hotel, or holiday apartment - but still one step-up from, and more comfortable, than pitching your own tent in the camping-ground. Some people have permanent on-site caravans as 'holiday homes', cheaper to buy and maintain than a house or cottage, and usually rented out during summer holidays on a leasing arrangement with the owners of the caravan park. They are rare enough however, to be relatively expensive to buy when they come on the market, as demand is high and supply low. In some places, both city and less touristy, small country town inland areas - a limited amount of permanent on-site caravan living is allowed, often for the elderly. Even then, the caravan itself must be privately owned - and the resident rents/leases the site, with some cheap arrangement for power & water, and other amenities, similar to boarding-houses. Again, these are popular and due to their rarity, such leasing arrangements are snapped up quickly when they do become available. It is rare to find unemployed people living in caravan parks however, in working-class poorer suburban areas, having a relative, friend or tenants living in a caravan in your back-yard is relatively common, as an alternative to expensive refitting of a garage, or building 'granny-flat' style accommodation, and a way of getting around the laws and additional taxes on "dual occupancy", or undeclared 'rental income'. "Itinerants" or travellers of no-fixed-address, are often "seasonal workers" - in many cases following the fruit and vegetable crops harvest seasons across the country, often whole families of diverse racial groups - where they work through from one harvest to another, for about 6-8 months of the year, and then winter over in caravan parks during the off-season when van-site rental is often cheaper. Many farmers have a handful of old broken caravans on the edges of their crops, specifically for 'worker accommodation', some have no problem with having rural farm-workers stay on all year round. They dont usually travel in their own caravans however, as generally speaking, caravans are quite expensive to buy, and are more likely to be picked-up by highway police as being "unroadworthy" if they are in bad condition, with poor tyres or severe rust damage etc - these people usually travel in convoys of small trucks, Kombi vans or utes (Ute = utility truck - what Americans call 'pick-ups') On the roads however, drivers towing caravans are generally the retired middle-aged people, commercials for life-insurance often show healthy retired middle-aged couples enjoying their retirement with their van in the great outdoors:)). Younger people and families, prefer smaller 4-WD vehicles, camper-vans, mini-buses or 7-seaters. This may be at least partly due to Australia's restrictive and highly punitive laws and fines against travelling without seat-belts, or passengers inside caravans, open truck-trays etc. As a child in the country, we occasionally travelled in the backs of Utes, and I remember vividly my parents telling us kids to "lie down and hide" as we came into towns where police may be around. Even the "seasonal workers" or "gypsies" would often strap their kids down in the back of thier trucks in ingenious ways as well. I am often surprised when I see on American films, people wandering, or lounging around, the backs of trailers whilst in motion, particularly children - most Australians over the age of 30 or so, have strong childhood memories of media advertising a kids hand-clapping game, as they are loading up into the family car etc, it was often encouraged through the schools as well - with the jingle rhyme: " Mum! Dad! Don't be Slack! Click! Clack! Front and Back!" - I found myself years later, teaching my own children that clapping game/jingle when they were little and cranky about being forced to having themselves belted in... Even large public bus/coaches (the GreyHounds etc) now have seat-belts fitted on all seats. > >The other people who live in caravans are 'travellers' (more or less >equivalent to gypsies, though ethnically diverse) who live in caravans >which are at least in principle on the move. Some stay for months or years >in the same spot however. These 'sites' are generally illegal and with no >services like clean water or sewage disposal. They are thus very dirty and >insanitary places, and the travellers are generally disliked by locals. My >sister used to have a job organising education for 'traveller' children. > >Finally some young unemployed homeless people emulate this type of >lifestyle but with more of a hippy emphasis (I'm simplifying) and these are >generally called 'new-age travellers', tend to be pagans, and get beaten up >by the police. In Australia, using caravans is quite rare for this sort of lifestyle, although there are occasional ones. In the tropical north, young people, unemployed, and aboriginal people etc may live almost completely outdoors due to the warmth of the climate, keeping hidden mattresses, camp-stoves etc in sheltered rocky platforms close to isolated beaches - its common for them to live for varying lengths of time in "squats" which are more like tin-sheds, lean-to's, deserted farm homesteads, huts or the remains of dumped vehicles, mini-buses etc - almost anything except a caravan. As long as they are far enough away from tourists, or townships/suburbs ( ie - *invisible*) - nobody really gives a damn. One of the racist jokes of the Australian outback, is if your vehicle breaks down in the middle of nowhere, and its not worth the expense of repair or having it towed into the next town - you literally "dump it - (or leave it) for the boongs or coons" (racist epithets for aboriginal people) and unfortunately, this is often the case. Julieanne ppp98@cs.net.au ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 00:10:17 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jen Subject: Handmaid's Tale Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi all~ Finally, I have something to contribute! I think I've been just lurking here for about two months without a thing to say! I've been enjoying the info, though, on sci-fi feminist books. I have to say I'm pretty new to the subject! The "halfway human" discussion sparked my thoughts on this. I am reading the book, "Handmaid's Tale," by Margaret Atwood for a women writer's course at school. I'm not quite finished with it yet...so please don't mention how it ends!! *smile* Honestly, the book is terrifying me. Handmaid's Tale is a good reason to become, or remain a strong feminist! For those of you who are not familiar with it, Handmaid's Tale is a 1984-style, modern novel, in which the women are uprooted of all their rights, i.e. the right to work or own anything at all. Women are given designators. One is either a "wife," a "Martha" (housekeeper/cook?), a "handmaid" (who bear children for sterile couples), or an "unwoman," which I believe refers to feminists and other women who refused to assimilate into this new culture or failed to assimilate for whatever reason. (I don't know if there are any other designators, but these are the main ones) The "new way" is a sudden change, with military enforcement and new laws, enforced by men. The handmaids are not even allowed to retain their own names. For example, the main character, whose real name I don't know, is simply called "Offred," because the commander's name she "works" for (I believe) is named "Fred." This book hits close to home, going into detail of the "time before" - which is basically what we are living now. In the "time before," women hold jobs, own property, keep their own children, are free to travel, hold rallies, such as the "Take Back the Night March" (of which I am a part of on my campus), etc. Atwood mentions Detroit, Michigan, which is close to me, and other cities in the U.S., localizing the story (for Americans) She also mentions, briefly, other countries, but I believe this "new economy" is supposed to be in the U.S. I could go on, but this is getting lengthy! Does anyone have any thoughts on this book? I'd like to start up a discussion on it. The thing that terrified me, is with so many men still in control, a strong political coup or something along those lines could turn this into reality! I tend to feel that Atwood is trying to make a point about feminism. Which is basically, that as feminists and/or women, we really need to strengthen ourselves and continue efforts to achieve political equality in this country (actually, any country, I think.) Those are my thoughts.... :-) Jen ~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~* Visit Women Initiating Social Equality (W.I.S.E.) at our new website at: http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/3291 ~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~* "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people, too." ~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~* ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 14:17:55 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Le Comte Subject: Angels and Wings: "The Coming Race" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" These threads on the imagery of winged angels reminds me of a book, I have just received called "The Coming Race", by Lord Edward George Earle Bulwer Lytton (wow, what a mouthful) which was originally published in 1871., when the acknowledged pioneer of the English sci-fi novel, H G Wells, was a 5 year-old boy. Apparently, it was very popular as it went through 5 editions within months of original publication, and several later authors of which we are more familiar, claimed it as a "major influence" on their own writing. The synopsis reads in part - "a young adventurer goes down into the earth to explore a deep mine-shaft ... and soon finds himself entombed in a subterranean world of wonders.....Here is the monumental city of the Vril-ya, a master race of wonderful winged angelic creatures, humans who have evolved into super-humans, the Darwinian ultimates.....He discovers that women here are the biologically superior sex, seven feet tall, more glorious of plume and appearance, and the more potent masters of the vril-force....." The introduction to my 1979 edition of this novel, claims it is the first science-fiction novel ever published which envisaged women as "the Dominant Sex" - Is anyone on the list familiar with this novel? ( Please, forgive me if this has been discussed before on the list) (I'm also a little daunted, that if the claims are true, then perhaps the first sci-fi novel envisaging a feminist view-point was actually written by a man ?? ) then again, I have not read it yet, so am unsure of the details of how its presented to the reader.... and I also find the image of a winged human species even more striking. What is it about winged creatures, and winged humans, that the popular imagination finds so attractive? Is it just judao-christian myth of angels? or is it something else? Julieanne ppp98@cs.net.au ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 03:06:15 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: ME Hunter Subject: Re: Angels and Wings: "The Coming Race" In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980505141755.007d7870@cs.net.au> (message from Julieanne Le Comte on Tue, 5 May 1998 14:17:55 +1000) Julieanne asked: >What is it about winged creatures, and winged humans, that the popular >imagination finds so attractive? Is it just judao-christian myth of angels? >or is it something else? I think flight has always fascinated many of us. Perhaps because it seems so freeing. "If happy little bluebirds fly beyond the rainbow, why can't I?" Perhaps it is a symbol to us of freedom, of escaping our ties, etc. "Free as a bird" we say. And perhaps we feel this way because it is the place we cannot go without mechanical intervention. Or perhaps just the beauty of watching a hawk soar beckons us. E. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 03:32:54 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: ME Hunter Subject: Re: Handmaid's Tale In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19980505001017.00698ce0@mail.tm.net> (message from Jen on Tue, 5 May 1998 00:10:17 -0700) >Atwood mentions Detroit, Michigan, which is close to me, and other cities >in the U.S., localizing the story (for Americans) She also mentions, >briefly, other countries, but I believe this "new economy" is supposed to be >in the U.S. The book is actually set in Cambridge, MA. Atwood spent some time at or around Harvard. The walk she and the other handmaid--sorry, I've forgotten the name--take to do the shopping was my walk to work for about a year and I thought a lot about this book on that daily walk. The wall where they display bodies is the wall around the Harvard Yard. I think the two things that disturbed me most were: 1) that they forbid the women to read--the idea that reading is a privilege has always been very evocative for me and that is the right I most fear losing. 2) that Fred's wife (Serena Joy, wasn't it?) had worked to achieve her current position, using her power to cut herself off from power--I thought that this was a good example of how carefully we all need to make our choices, lest we get what we said we wanted and find it wasn't what we wanted after all. I often think of her when I see women acting against what I see as the best interests of women. I think Atwood's main point is that one can become accustomed to the most horrible things and that the status quo is always seductive. And that is the most frightening thing of all. For what it's worth, I wouldn't recommend the movie. Like many movies of books I have loved, it glosses over the ideas in favor of a linear narrative. It does have some good performances and isn't a bad movie, exactly, but I don't think it captured the feeling of the book well at all. If this is your first Margaret Atwood experience, let me encourage you to read her other work, although Handmaid's Tale is very different from her other books. She is not a science fiction author, although she is certainly feminist. My favorite of her novels is _The Robber Bride_...I find myself occasionally wondering what one or another of the characters is up to these days. Her short story, "Bluebeard's Egg," is an incredible piece of work, terrifying in some ways (all emotional--she's not a gory writer, either, though she can be graphic). I was not as gripped by _Alias Grace_, her most recent work (it's historical and sort of grim), but I would say it is very much worth reading. E. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 07:31:02 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Handmaid's Tale In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19980505001017.00698ce0@mail.tm.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Try to rent the video. It's more tightly plotted. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 11:01:42 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: John Bertland Subject: Re: BDG Halfway Human In-Reply-To: <354D65BB.3CDA7052@nlc-bnc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 3 May 1998, Joslyn Grassby wrote: >Things the novel makes me wonder about: > >2. What does it mean to be "halfway human"? Is one not born human? >Does one achieve humanity? Or, is humanity thrust upon one? I did not find the book particularly entertaining at all; rather, I found it to be turgid with a spectacularly unsatisfying ending. As with many other sf novels published these days it probably would have made a very good novella. But there is still much of substance in the book that is intelligent and thoughtful and worthy of discussion. I'm just going to muse on the title a bit in this post, and hopefully I'll have the time and energy to write more later. First off, I find the notion of being half human quite clumsy - it seems like quite an exact measure for something that can't be quantified. But "partially human", "sort of human", "not quite human" and so on would all probably have been worse. That said, my take on the title was that "halfway" didn't refer to Tedla so much as it referred to the non-bland society of Gammadis. These people were only "halfway" human because of their exploitation of the blands. Tellegen makes this point on p.236: I'm talking about the basic morality of our social system. It is simply unconscionable that two-thirds of us should live off the labor of the other third. The exploitation of blands is corrosive to our humanity. Gilman does make clear, however, that the relationship is just as, if not more so, damaging to the humanity of the blands - whether the actual blands of Gammadis or the metaphorical ones she slips in toward the end. Of course "blands" are present in virtually every human society. I wish Gilman had done a better job presenting this idea, but her portrayal of Cappella Two is so sketchy and simplistic that it never quite works as a contrast to Gammadis. We know there are "blands" on Cappella just as we know there are "blands" in our own societies. We never really get to meet or spend any substantial amount of time with the ones on Cappella in the book and pretty much have to take Tedla's word on it. Tedla has some powerful words, though, and toward the end of the book (p.447) we get the other side of the coin of Tellegen's quote above: They live shabby, circumscribed lives--aware of, but never aspiring to, the humanity around them, though they will live off it parasitically if they can...They take whatever chances others give them. They complain, but not so that you can hear them. There are not greydoors here except the ones inside peoples' minds, but those are closed as tight as ever--and locked from both sides. Thus being "halfway" human is not just a matter of selfishly exploiting another it is also a matter of letting yourself be exploited, of letting others tell you that you are not quite human and then not resisting them. One has to work to achieve humanity (a point Tedla makes elsewhere in the book when referring to reproduction and sucide, although I am not as sympathetic on those topics). I particularly like this reading because otherwise I find myself starting to romanticize the blands (which is not hard to do given the centrality of Tedla's character to everything) as merely victims. And once I start to romanticize them I run the danger of romanticizing the "blands" that exist outside the book. Which leads me to one other thought and then I'll wander off (although there are many other themes I'd like to discuss when I have some more time - I haven't mentioned gender at all, sorry!). And that is the character of Tellegen, who very clearly romanticized the blands as naive innocents. I was very bothered by his romantic relationship with Tedla and still have trouble seeing it as anything other than rape (or at least harrassment). He was abusing his position of power, and Tedla at that point in its life was not at all free to make the choice as to whether it was truly in love or not. The whole affair was clouded by Tellegen's relationship as Tedla's guardian. This might have only bothered me, though, and I would like to hear what other's thought about it. With this reading, Tedla's two romantic relationships are with a rapist and a pedophile, and it is no wonder that it has such negative views of sexuality and non-neuter peole. Two other questions- 1) Given the heavy environmental message of the novel, can we call this an ecofeminist sf novel? 2) Did this remind anyone else of Jane Eyre? (orphanages, falling in love with your master, people in the attic burning things down, etc.) -John Bertland ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 11:12:01 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: John Bertland Subject: Re: BDG Halfway Human and being an it In-Reply-To: <354D65BB.3CDA7052@nlc-bnc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 3 May 1998, Joslyn Grassby also wrote: > Tedla throughout is referred to as "it", a usage I found very >unsettling. To use the term "it" and yet to be referring to a human, >very effectively sets up a dissonance that keeps the reader alert and >uncomfortable. And it is in many ways an uncomfortable book. And a little later: >She remains convinced that she is stupid, subhuman and incapable of love >(and I found this a bit overdone). I found it a bit overdone, too, but did you even realize that you referred to Tedla as a she in your post? For me, any impact this novel might have is thoroughly dissipated if you assign one of our current genders to Tedla. It becomes a book about women rather than one about "blands" although the overlap between the two categories is obvious. Gilman could have come up with a different pronoun altogether, but that is usually clumsy. I was disappointed that she didn't make the etymology of the Gammadian pronoun clearer (I hope I didn't miss it). We are after all reading this as a translation in English by way of Capellan, and who knows what sort of significance the word "it" bears in the various cultures. Although, since Capella is a thinly veiled stand in for the developed world today, we might be able to guess. -John Bertland ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 10:06:06 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: feminism does not equal dominance Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Julieanne, discussing "The Coming Race", by Bulwer Lytton (who has a "Worst Writing Contest in his honor run every year in English departments all around the country), notes her edition "claims it is the first science-fiction novel ever published which envisaged women as "the Dominant Sex"" and says "I'm also a little daunted, that if the claims are true, then perhaps the first sci-fi novel envisaging a feminist view-point was actually written by a man" I am not at all opposed to the concept that a man could write feminist SF, but I reject utterly and completely the idea that novels showing women as dominant are by definition feminist. There were a batch of utterly dreadful sci-fi novels published in the fifties and sixties which Joanna Russ has talked about which show American men adventuring to outer space planets where women rule: the societies are often presented as "hive societies" in which queens are supported by drones. These culture are simple role reversals, showing (Russ argues) men's fears that women would behave just like men if they gained "control." Usually, all it takes is a couple of good *ahem* interludes of vigorous lovemaking by the All Amerikan Male to transform the Killer Queens into submissive passive women. As speculative fictions, some seventies utopias show societies in which all men have died out to explore what it would mean to have a society composed of women--and there are dystopian novels which explore ideas about the ruling caste becoming women (Tepper's _The Gate to Women's Country_)--and then there are the penny dreadful texts which Russ characterizes as profoundly misogynist. I'm not sure where Bulwer Lytton's work might fall since I haven't read it--but even if it's considered feminist, it was published long after, say, Christine de Pizan's _The Book of the City of Ladies_ , written in 1405, in which the narrator, aided by "three celestial ladies, Reason, Rectitude, and Justice," build a "fortified city, an ideal city, in which all noble women of the past, present, and future can live undisturbed." This work (hard reading if you aren't familiar with the conventions of medieval rhetoric and argument) is one of the earliest books considered "feminist" by contemporary scholars. Robin in Texas ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 09:19:38 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michelle Bernard Subject: Re: Angels and Wings: "The Coming Race" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Hi I've read "The Coming Race" for a gender and SF class. I wouldn't say that the book is feminist, just that Bulwar-Lytton uses the spectre of the underground people to counter then-current feminist/women's rights ideas. Sort of a counter-reading... it shows up the then-current demands of women by showing how topsy-turvy (or carnivalesque) the underground world is. Implicating how wrong above-ground Britain would be if women were more powerful than men. There's both the narrator's voice, and Bulwer-Lytton's voice in the novel. It's been a few years, I'd have to go pull the novel out again. Oh, and an interesting thing to think about... when this novel was written, evolution was not a set as we conceive it now (Darwin only publishing his version in 1859), and there was a current thread that thought humans could have been decended from frogs, and this is played out in the idea of "The Coming Race." misha bernardm@colorado.edu > ---------- > From: Julieanne Le Comte[SMTP:ppp98@CS.NET.AU] > Sent: Monday, May 04, 1998 10:17 PM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: [*FSFFU*] Angels and Wings: "The Coming Race" > > These threads on the imagery of winged angels reminds me of a book, I > have > just received called "The Coming Race", by Lord Edward George Earle > Bulwer > Lytton (wow, what a mouthful) which was originally published in 1871., > when > the acknowledged pioneer of the English sci-fi novel, H G Wells, was a > 5 > year-old boy. > Apparently, it was very popular as it went through 5 editions within > months > of original publication, and several later authors of which we are > more > familiar, claimed it as a "major influence" on their own writing. > > The synopsis reads in part - "a young adventurer goes down into the > earth > to explore a deep mine-shaft ... and soon finds himself entombed in a > subterranean world of wonders.....Here is the monumental city of the > Vril-ya, a master race of wonderful winged angelic creatures, humans > who > have evolved into super-humans, the Darwinian ultimates.....He > discovers > that women here are the biologically superior sex, seven feet tall, > more > glorious of plume and appearance, and the more potent masters of the > vril-force....." > > The introduction to my 1979 edition of this novel, claims it is the > first > science-fiction novel ever published which envisaged women as "the > Dominant > Sex" - > > Is anyone on the list familiar with this novel? > ( Please, forgive me if this has been discussed before on the list) > (I'm also a little daunted, that if the claims are true, then perhaps > the > first sci-fi novel envisaging a feminist view-point was actually > written > by a man ?? ) > then again, I have not read it yet, so am unsure of the details of how > its > presented to the reader.... > and I also find the image of a winged human species even more > striking. > > What is it about winged creatures, and winged humans, that the popular > imagination finds so attractive? Is it just judao-christian myth of > angels? > or is it something else? > > Julieanne > ppp98@cs.net.au > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 09:16:10 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: book identification? Comments: cc: mmnorman@macline.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 22:07:21 +0100 >From: "M.J.Norman" >Trying to bring the subject back on topic, I have a hopeful question to put >to the list. While teaching middle school in CA, I found a fantasy book in >the school library, and thought it was wonderful. Of course, thinking I'd >always be able to look at it again, I didn't bother to write down the title >or author. Perhaps someone can help me out. > >It's about a young woman (can't remember her name) who travels around her >land showing people what is in their minds. I think (but I'm not sure) >they called her a 'soul-singer'. I don't know how else to explain it. >Generally, either a person will ask her to look into their own mind, or a >group of people who are being mistreated by someone will ask her to look >into the miscreant's mind. By doing this she helps people see the truth of >how their actions affect others and they begin to want to change their >ways. I seem to also remember that sometimes they can't face the truth and >go mad. Her profession was honoured and seen as a great benefit to others. > >I know it's not a lot of description, but does this book sound familiar to >anyone? I'd really appreciate it if anyone could tell me the title, author >and any other info they might know. > >Thanks, >Monica >mmnorman@macline.co.uk > Monica: Sounds like Mercedes Lackey's "Arrow" trilogy. ARROW's FLIGHT, ARROW'S FALL and ARROWS OF THE QUEEN. Her first books, IIRC, following a short story debut in one of MZB's Sword and Sorceress anthologies. I think Lackey is a very skilled storyteller, but I find her prose style a little lacking, and the themes of her now *many* books a bit redundant. Once she gets the reader caught up in the flow, though, it doesn't seem to matter. These are good transition books for YA readers, IMO. Pax, Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 09:25:34 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sandy Candioglos Subject: Re: Handmaid's Tale MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BD7807.C2182B70" ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD7807.C2182B70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I also read "Handmaid's Tale" for school, and the idea that it brings up = that has stuck with me the most is the statement that there are two = different kinds of freedom - freedom to, and freedom from. Before the = military takeover (ie, in our current society), women had/have more = freedom to, but not as much freedom from. At the time of the book, = women have lost their freedom to, but have lots of freedom from. Of course, as I'm writing this, it's occuring to me that it totally begs = the question of why the men in the story have (and have always had) both = freedom to AND freedom from. I just thought it was interesting to separate freedom that way, because = I'd never considered it before. -Sandy -----Original Message----- From: Jen [SMTP:jen@TM.NET] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 1998 12:10 AM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: [*FSFFU*] Handmaid's Tale Hi all~ Finally, I have something to contribute! I think I've been just lurking here for about two months without a thing to say! I've been enjoying = the info, though, on sci-fi feminist books. I have to say I'm pretty new to the subject! The "halfway human" discussion sparked my thoughts on this. I am = reading the book, "Handmaid's Tale," by Margaret Atwood for a women writer's = course at school. I'm not quite finished with it yet...so please don't mention how it ends!! *smile* Honestly, the book is terrifying me. Handmaid's Tale is a good reason = to become, or remain a strong feminist! For those of you who are not = familiar with it, Handmaid's Tale is a 1984-style, modern novel, in which the = women are uprooted of all their rights, i.e. the right to work or own anything = at all. Women are given designators. One is either a "wife," a "Martha" (housekeeper/cook?), a "handmaid" (who bear children for sterile = couples), or an "unwoman," which I believe refers to feminists and other women who refused to assimilate into this new culture or failed to assimilate for whatever reason. (I don't know if there are any other designators, but these are the main ones) The "new way" is a sudden change, with military enforcement and new = laws, enforced by men. The handmaids are not even allowed to retain their own names. For example, the main character, whose real name I don't know, = is simply called "Offred," because the commander's name she "works" for (I believe) is named "Fred." This book hits close to home, going into detail of the "time before" - which is basically what we are living now. In the "time before," women hold jobs, own property, keep their own children, are free to travel, = hold rallies, such as the "Take Back the Night March" (of which I am a part = of on my campus), etc. Atwood mentions Detroit, Michigan, which is close = to me, and other cities in the U.S., localizing the story (for Americans) = She also mentions, briefly, other countries, but I believe this "new = economy" is supposed to be in the U.S. I could go on, but this is getting lengthy! Does anyone have any = thoughts on this book? I'd like to start up a discussion on it. The thing that terrified me, is with so many men still in control, a = strong political coup or something along those lines could turn this into = reality! I tend to feel that Atwood is trying to make a point about feminism. Which is basically, that as feminists and/or women, we really need to strengthen ourselves and continue efforts to achieve political equality = in this country (actually, any country, I think.) Those are my thoughts.... :-) Jen ~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~* Visit Women Initiating Social Equality (W.I.S.E.) at our new website at: http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/3291 ~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~* "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people, too." ~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~* ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 09:30:10 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sandy Candioglos Subject: Re: Sister Fidelma,Acorna and a question. Was Angels and Wings MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BD7808.67282E80" ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD7808.67282E80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----Original Message----- From: M.J.Norman [SMTP:mmnorman@MACLINE.CO.UK] Sent: Monday, May 04, 1998 2:07 PM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Sister Fidelma,Acorna and a question. Was Angels and Wings >Although I think it's technically in the Mystery genre (and thus >not quite on topic, although I think it fits into SF somewhat and >is at the least more feminist than many...), I much enjoyed reading >Katherine Neville's _The Magic Circle_. It has a bit of retelling >of Jesus's last days and some correspondance between Joseph of A. >and Mary Magdalene. It was a new take on it to me, but I'm rather >ignorant on this topic... > I suppose this is getting a bit off-topic, but perhaps you'd enjoy reading Peter Tremayne's "Sister Fidelma" mysteries. The main character is a 7th century Irish 'nun' who is also qualified as a lawyer (or advocate). Tremayne seems to be quite knowledgable about early Irish society, Fidelma is a wonderful character and I find them fascinating. Trying to bring the subject back on topic, I have a hopeful question to put to the list. While teaching middle school in CA, I found a fantasy book in the school library, and thought it was wonderful. Of course, thinking I'd always be able to look at it again, I didn't bother to write down the title or author. Perhaps someone can help me out. It's about a young woman (can't remember her name) who travels around her land showing people what is in their minds. I think (but I'm not sure) they called her a 'soul-singer'. I don't know how else to explain it. Generally, either a person will ask her to look into their own mind, or a group of people who are being mistreated by someone will ask her to look into the miscreant's mind. By doing this she helps people see the truth of how their actions affect others and they begin to want to change their ways. I seem to also remember that sometimes they can't face the truth and go mad. Her profession was honoured and seen as a great benefit to others. I know it's not a lot of description, but does this book sound familiar to anyone? I'd really appreciate it if anyone could tell me the title, author and any other info they might know. Thanks, Monica mmnorman@macline.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 09:45:31 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sandy Candioglos Subject: Re: Sister Fidelma,Acorna and a question. Was Angels and Wings MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BD780A.8BDF8690" ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD780A.8BDF8690 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I appologize for the blank response I just sent - please just ignore it. Could you be talking about Gayle Greeno's books? It's been a while = since I've read them, but the series is called "The Gahtti's Tale", and = the titles are "Finders-Seekers", "Mindspeaker's Call", and "Exiles' = Return", and as I recall, they're roughly about what you said here. If = you don't remember a big cat-like telepathic familiar that helps her = out, though, then it probably isn't them. The Ghatti, and the bondmate = relationship between the human mindseeker and the Ghatti are a focus of = the stories. Worth reading, even if it's not what you're thinking of. One thing you might do is check out Mary Anne's list of recommended = children's SF/Fantasy, since it was in a middle school library - if it = was a YA book, she might have it listed, and you might be able to find = it - she's got short descriptions on most of the books listed. http://www.iam.com/maryanne/kidsf.html This is a wonderful list - I was reading through it, and came across = Sylvia Engdahl - I'd read her books in elementary school and had almost = completely forgotten about them, though I remembered the story, and it = had stuck with me. Thanks for such a great resource, Mary Anne!! -Sandy -----Original Message----- From: M.J.Norman [SMTP:mmnorman@MACLINE.CO.UK] Sent: Monday, May 04, 1998 2:07 PM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Sister Fidelma,Acorna and a question. Was Angels and Wings Trying to bring the subject back on topic, I have a hopeful question to = put to the list. While teaching middle school in CA, I found a fantasy book = in the school library, and thought it was wonderful. Of course, thinking = I'd always be able to look at it again, I didn't bother to write down the = title or author. Perhaps someone can help me out. It's about a young woman (can't remember her name) who travels around = her land showing people what is in their minds. I think (but I'm not sure) they called her a 'soul-singer'. I don't know how else to explain it. Generally, either a person will ask her to look into their own mind, or = a group of people who are being mistreated by someone will ask her to look into the miscreant's mind. By doing this she helps people see the truth = of how their actions affect others and they begin to want to change their ways. I seem to also remember that sometimes they can't face the truth = and go mad. Her profession was honoured and seen as a great benefit to = others. I know it's not a lot of description, but does this book sound familiar = to anyone? I'd really appreciate it if anyone could tell me the title, = author and any other info they might know. Thanks, Monica mmnorman@macline.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 12:01:46 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edrie J Sobstyl Subject: Re: BDG Halfway Human and being an it In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII the discussion of pronouns reminds me somewhat of discussion that emerged following the publication of Jeanette Winterson's _Written on the Body_; the sex of the protagonist in this novel is not specified, and it was taken to be quite striking that some readers were utterly and thoroughly convinced that it *had* to be a woman, while others felt equally strongly that it *had* to be a man. As far as I can recall (and it's been a good long while!), there was no convincing demonstration offered that readers of one particular sex tended to draw one conclusion, while those of the opposite sex drew the opposite conclusion. In Tedla's case, though, it specifies in more than one place in the novel that it prefers to be referred to AS "it" -- I think Gilman likely suspected how difficult and jarring it would be to read, and to think about a character in these terms -- which is of course part of the point of the novel. It's much richer than just a gender issue, however. I find it almost more interesting that it's the blands who become the workforce for their society, and that they have been biologically created specifically for this purpose. A good Marxist critique of biology, of the sort offered by Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald, is implicit in the novel. edrie On Tue, 5 May 1998 11:12:01 -0400 John Bertland wrote: > On Sun, 3 May 1998, Joslyn Grassby also wrote: > > > Tedla throughout is referred to as "it", a usage I found very > >unsettling. To use the term "it" and yet to be referring to a human, > >very effectively sets up a dissonance that keeps the reader alert and > >uncomfortable. And it is in many ways an uncomfortable book. > > And a little later: > > >She remains convinced that she is stupid, subhuman and incapable of love > >(and I found this a bit overdone). > > I found it a bit overdone, too, but did you even realize that you > referred to Tedla as a she in your post? For me, any impact this novel > might have is thoroughly dissipated if you assign one of our current > genders to Tedla. It becomes a book about women rather than one about > "blands" although the overlap between the two categories is obvious. > Gilman could have come up with a different pronoun altogether, but that > is usually clumsy. I was disappointed that she didn't make the etymology > of the Gammadian pronoun clearer (I hope I didn't miss it). We are after > all reading this as a translation in English by way of Capellan, and who > knows what sort of significance the word "it" bears in the various > cultures. Although, since Capella is a thinly veiled stand in for the > developed world today, we might be able to guess. > > -John Bertland Edrie Sobstyl School of Arts and Humanities University of Texas at Dallas P.O. Box 830688 Richardson Tx 75083-0688 (972) 883-2365 (972) 883-2989 (fax) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 10:07:59 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: Angels and Wings In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 02 May 98 11:41:11 EDT." <3.0.2.32.19980502114111.00716e5c@haverford.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii It's been my experience that a lot of Madeline L'Engle books either hit you just right or don't. I found _Many Waters_ to be a rather dry historical fantasy; interesting, but not beautiful. _A Wind In The Door_, on the other hand, I thought was lovely. I skimmed it again this weekend (the advantage of children's books, they're so short). In fact, the whole book is so short that I think it's easy to just remember small bits of it. I do, usually. (Ie, the mitochondria, about which there are a very few pages.) I don't remember the tidy-untidy dichotomy. In fact, most of what I remember is Meg being a mess, her mother cooking dinner on the bunsen burner in the lab, Mrs. Whatsit/Which/Who living in a dilapidated abandoned house. What I noticed, though, was that Mom always cooked dinner, Dad went to talk to the president. And Calvin's mother is really demonized for being a Bad Mother (oh, is this what you meant about cleanliness? I do see that), while as far as I can tell his father doesn't take any of the blame. Is he even around? I don't remember him. For purposes of discussion I reproduce a snippet of the destruction of Proginoskes, the singular cherubim ("I am certainly not a cherub"), which at first Charles believes is a drive of dragons: They turned around, and they saw, there by the great rock -- wings, it seemed like hundreds of wings, spreading, folding, stretching -- and eyes how many eyes can a drive of dragons have? and small jets of flame Suddenly a voice called to them from the direction of the woods, "Do not be afraid!" [...] Meg was not at all surprised that Charles Wallace had confused this fierce, wild being with dragons. She had the feeling that she never saw all of it at once, and which of all the eyes could she meet? merry eyes, wise eyes, ferocious eyes, kitten eyes, dragon eyes, opening and closing, looking at her. And wings, wings in constant motion, covering and uncovering the eyes. When the wings were spread out they had a span of at least ten feet, and when they were all folded in, the creature resembled a misty, feathery sphere. Little spurts of flame and smoke spouted up between the wings; it could certainly start a grass fire if it weren't careful. Now *that's* an angel I can respect. Interestingly, it is a he. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 10:20:23 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: bdg nomination web page Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII sorry y'all - i'm been flaking out lately - but the bdg nomination web page is up at: http://www.wenet.net/~lquilter/femsf/bdg/noms.html good work comrades! Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 14:21:52 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: ME Hunter Subject: Re: BDG Halfway Human and being an it In-Reply-To: (message from Edrie J Sobstyl on Tue, 5 May 1998 12:01:46 -0400) Edrie wrote: >I find it almost more interesting that it's the blands who become the >workforce for their society, and that they have been biologically created >specifically for this purpose. I don't believe this is the case. Gilman makes it fairly clear that the Gammadians made themselves default-neuter in an attempt to curb their population and lessen their impact on their environment. There is no mention of a *plan* to subjugate the blands. Although the author does not go into detail on this point, the implication seemed to be that they all became default-neuter, with sex becoming a privilege earned by merit. The effect of this was to create a sexually differentiated elite and a neuter drudge-force, but I do not believe this to have been the plan. I would have appreciated some comment, perhaps by Ovide,along the lines of "Sometimes we make mistakes in choosing the blands." E. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 12:43:30 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: BDG Halfway Human and being an it In-Reply-To: <199805051821.OAA28985@asylum.apocalypse.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 5 May 1998, ME Hunter wrote: > I would have appreciated some comment, perhaps by Ovide,along the lines of > "Sometimes we make mistakes in choosing the blands." > The problem is, choosing Tedla - once I understood it - is NOT a mistake from the standpoint of the ruling class. Tedla is pretty and bright. As a gendered person, s/he would be competition. As a bland, they could use er any way they wanted. Horrible, but logical.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 11:43:05 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: BDG Halfway Human and being an it In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 05 May 98 11:12:01 EDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >For me, any impact this novel >might have is thoroughly dissipated if you assign one of our current >genders to Tedla. What I found most disturbing was how hard it was for me not to do this. I was constantly picturing the blands as one gender or the other, frequently depending on how they were acting or how other people were behaving towards them. It was sort of appalling, really. >I was disappointed that she didn't make the etymology >of the Gammadian pronoun clearer (I hope I didn't miss it). We are after >all reading this as a translation in English by way of Capellan, and who >knows what sort of significance the word "it" bears in the various >cultures. I think the word "it" meant "it", pretty flat out. Val says at one point that she doesn't like the word because it seems to imply non-consciousness (or something like that) and Tedla says that that makes it even closer to the original Gammadian. My impression was that "it" meant "a non-sentient thing with no gender". To give it a much more subtle interpretation may be to overinterpret. On another topic: Although I didn't notice it at the time, I ended up feeling like all of the really motivating characters on Gammadis were male. It's true that societally that didn't seem to be enforced in any way, and the women averaged the same status as the men, but in fact the gendered characters that I remember as most moving the story along were the squire, Galele, the abusive man whose name I can't even remember at Brice's, maybe the administrator at the creche who tells Tedla to reflect on its actions towards Joby. The women (Elector Hornaby (??), Ovide, Annika) seemed to do much less in terms of really moving the action forward. This is an awfully subjective assessment -- did other people have this reaction, or an opposite one, or think it was balanced? jessie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 14:50:38 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Subject: Re: Living in a caravan Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-05-04 23:40:43 EDT, you write: << Most of British Commonwealth countries call caravans, what Americans call 'trailers'. In Australia, they are even less likely to be used for poorer people's accommodation because of their relative expense. >> Thanks, everyone, for explaining the term "caravan" to me. I especially appreciate the lengthy post about British and Australian usages. Now I know where to go when one of these terms confuses me, because I am a definite Anglophile and I read many British novels, especially historical novels. These unknown terms put me quite out of countenance! barbara ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 14:54:23 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Subject: Re: Handmaid's Tale Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-05-05 00:22:17 EDT, you write: << The thing that terrified me, is with so many men still in control, a strong political coup or something along those lines could turn this into reality! >> Have you read "Lysistrata" in which the women of ancient Greece refuse to have sex with the men until they stop having wars? Perhaps that might make an effective counterstrike. But I also believe that there are enough men who know that we are human beings and not property that such an event could not happen on such a scale. barbara ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 15:00:25 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Subject: Re: BDG Halfway Human Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-05-05 11:11:45 EDT, you write: << 2) Did this remind anyone else of Jane Eyre? (orphanages, falling in love with your master, people in the attic burning things down, etc.) >> What it made me think of was the Next Generation episode, "Measure of a Man," in which a trial took place to determine the rights of intelligent artificial life forms. If you have thoughts and feelings like those of a human, dang it, you are human, and I have no right to say you exist only to serve me. I have no right to say that only beings exactly like me are OK. But many people have just the opposite attitude. IN the book, it was a different kind of difference, but it was the same old story of oppression of the Other. barbara ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 14:26:23 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edrie J Sobstyl Subject: Re: Angels and Wings: "The Coming Race" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Misha, I've come across this idea that humans are descended from frogs before -- it appears, perhaps most notoriously, in Robert Chambers' _Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation_, first published anonymously in 1844 to great public acclaim and scientific controversy. Could you elaborate a bit on the connection between these ideas and _The Coming Race_ (i.e. historical connections if you're aware of any)? Thanks! edrie On Tue, 5 May 1998 09:19:38 -0600 Michelle Bernard wrote: > Hi > I've read "The Coming Race" for a gender and SF class. I > wouldn't say that the book is feminist, just that Bulwar-Lytton uses the > spectre of the underground people to counter then-current > feminist/women's rights ideas. Sort of a counter-reading... it shows up > the then-current demands of women by showing how topsy-turvy (or > carnivalesque) the underground world is. Implicating how wrong > above-ground Britain would be if women were more powerful than men. > There's both the narrator's voice, and Bulwer-Lytton's voice in the > novel. It's been a few years, I'd have to go pull the novel out again. > Oh, and an interesting thing to think about... when this novel > was written, evolution was not a set as we conceive it now (Darwin only > publishing his version in 1859), and there was a current thread that > thought humans could have been decended from frogs, and this is played > out in the idea of "The Coming Race." > misha > bernardm@colorado.edu > > > ---------- > > From: Julieanne Le Comte[SMTP:ppp98@CS.NET.AU] > > Sent: Monday, May 04, 1998 10:17 PM > > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > > Subject: [*FSFFU*] Angels and Wings: "The Coming Race" > > > > These threads on the imagery of winged angels reminds me of a book, I > > have > > just received called "The Coming Race", by Lord Edward George Earle > > Bulwer > > Lytton (wow, what a mouthful) which was originally published in 1871., > > when > > the acknowledged pioneer of the English sci-fi novel, H G Wells, was a > > 5 > > year-old boy. > > Apparently, it was very popular as it went through 5 editions within > > months > > of original publication, and several later authors of which we are > > more > > familiar, claimed it as a "major influence" on their own writing. > > > > The synopsis reads in part - "a young adventurer goes down into the > > earth > > to explore a deep mine-shaft ... and soon finds himself entombed in a > > subterranean world of wonders.....Here is the monumental city of the > > Vril-ya, a master race of wonderful winged angelic creatures, humans > > who > > have evolved into super-humans, the Darwinian ultimates.....He > > discovers > > that women here are the biologically superior sex, seven feet tall, > > more > > glorious of plume and appearance, and the more potent masters of the > > vril-force....." > > > > The introduction to my 1979 edition of this novel, claims it is the > > first > > science-fiction novel ever published which envisaged women as "the > > Dominant > > Sex" - > > > > Is anyone on the list familiar with this novel? > > ( Please, forgive me if this has been discussed before on the list) > > (I'm also a little daunted, that if the claims are true, then perhaps > > the > > first sci-fi novel envisaging a feminist view-point was actually > > written > > by a man ?? ) > > then again, I have not read it yet, so am unsure of the details of how > > its > > presented to the reader.... > > and I also find the image of a winged human species even more > > striking. > > > > What is it about winged creatures, and winged humans, that the popular > > imagination finds so attractive? Is it just judao-christian myth of > > angels? > > or is it something else? > > > > Julieanne > > ppp98@cs.net.au > > Edrie Sobstyl School of Arts and Humanities University of Texas at Dallas P.O. Box 830688 Richardson Tx 75083-0688 (972) 883-2365 (972) 883-2989 (fax) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 13:23:37 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: BDG Halfway Human In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 5 May 1998, Lurima wrote: > What it made me think of was the Next Generation episode, "Measure of a Man," > in which a trial took place to determine the rights of intelligent artificial > life forms. If you have thoughts and feelings like those of a human, dang it, > you are human, and I have no right to say you exist only to serve me. I have > no right to say that only beings exactly like me are OK. But many people have > just the opposite attitude. IN the book, it was a different kind of > difference, but it was the same old story of oppression of the Other. > That was written by local author (New Mexico) Melinda Snodgrass as the script she hoped to convince the Trek people to hire her with. Those things NEVER get aired. Hah! She later left NextGen because Roddenberry wanted to push a vision of the future as having outgrown all conflict. > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 13:26:33 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Handmaid's Tale In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 5 May 1998, Lurima wrote: > > Have you read "Lysistrata" in which the women of ancient Greece refuse to have > sex with the men until they stop having wars? Perhaps that might make an > effective counterstrike. I'm afraid it's not, as long as men are physically stronger than women and more likely to go armed. Ask them in Bosnia. But I also believe that there are enough men who know > that we are human beings and not property that such an event could not happen > on such a scale. > Oh, but my DEAR! It's ONLY for the little dears' own GOOD! Or for the good of society; we can't afford all this feminist selfishness at a time of crisis like THIS! CAN we? I suggest you read Suzette Haden Elgin's NATIVE TONGUE series. She thinks it would be stupid to do it the way it's done in HANDMAID'S TALE; smart men would use methods she's outlined. But when has being stupid ever stopped a revolutionary with a bug in his (or her) britches? Ask them in Afghanistan!> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 16:43:59 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joan Bowman Subject: BDG Voting Page Posted Comments: cc: jkrauel@actioneer.com, pm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de, lquilter@igc.apc.org, terriergraphics@cybertours.com Let the voting begin . . . http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/1443/index.html If you have any problems accessing the page just let me know. Joan jobowman@juno.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 21:36:16 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Vonda WON the NEBULA!!! In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Thanks, Maryelizabeth. I was really surprised. Had to keep looking at the base of the award to be sure my name hadn't transmuted to somebody else's. By the way, Mr. Bond was absolutely the hit of the weekend. Everybody fell in love/awe/admiration with him. Vonda On Sun, 3 May 1998 08:00:35 +0100, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: >The Nebula Winners are: > >Writer Emeritus: Nelson S. Bond >Service Award: Robin Wayne Bailey >Short Story: Jane Yolen, "Sister Emily's Lightship" >Novelette: Nancy Kress, "The Flowers of Aulit Prison" >Novella: Jerry Oltion, "Abandon in Place" >Novel: Vonda McIntyre, _The Moon and the Sun_ > >Woohoo!!! >... ***** http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda http://www.sfwa.org/awards/1997neb.htm ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 21:23:30 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: book identification? >Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 22:07:21 +0100 >From: "M.J.Norman" >Trying to bring the subject back on topic, I have a hopeful question to put >to the list. While teaching middle school in CA, I found a fantasy book in >the school library, and thought it was wonderful. Of course, thinking I'd >always be able to look at it again, I didn't bother to write down the title >or author. Perhaps someone can help me out. > >It's about a young woman (can't remember her name) who travels around her >land showing people what is in their minds. I think (but I'm not sure) >they called her a 'soul-singer'. I don't know how else to explain it. >Generally, either a person will ask her to look into their own mind, or a >group of people who are being mistreated by someone will ask her to look >into the miscreant's mind. By doing this she helps people see the truth of >how their actions affect others and they begin to want to change their >ways. I seem to also remember that sometimes they can't face the truth and >go mad. Her profession was honoured and seen as a great benefit to others. > >I know it's not a lot of description, but does this book sound familiar to >anyone? I'd really appreciate it if anyone could tell me the title, author >and any other info they might know. > >Thanks, >Monica >mmnorman@macline.co.uk > I think this may be _Soulsinger_ by, as far as I recollect (It does not appear to be any longer on my shelves) Ardath Mayhar. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 10:18:06 +1200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jenny Subject: BDG - Vote MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, Hope this the place to put in my discussion preferences. I'd like to discuss Don't Bet on the Prince, a GREAT story collection by Zipes Melissa Scott's Shadow Man Snow Queen, by Joan d Vinge Jenny R ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 02:27:35 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Re: feminism does not equal dominance In-Reply-To: <199805051506.KAA13438@etsuodt.tamu-commerce.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It was 05/05/98 16:06:06 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful occasions, I observed Robin Reid , hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > I am not at all opposed to the concept that a man could write feminist SF, > but I reject utterly and completely the idea that novels showing women as > dominant are by definition feminist. On the contrary, dominance is no more feminist than submission. Feminism is a quest for freedom. Freedom can not exist without its partner, equality. If we are not all equal then NONE of us are truly free. > There were a batch of utterly dreadful > sci-fi novels published in the fifties and sixties which Joanna Russ has > talked about which show American men adventuring to outer space planets > where women rule: the societies are often presented as "hive societies" in > which queens are supported by drones. These culture are simple role > reversals, showing (Russ argues) men's fears that women would behave just > like men if they gained "control." Far more than simple role reversal, these queens were often truly evil, sadistic and unfeeling. Come back, Genghis, all is forgiven. Of course, as I am sure you are all aware, these great literary works were intended as a warning, highlighting the dangers inherent in allowing women to have power. (Funny how no women ever wrote pointing out this obvious truth. Oh, silly me, I forgot. As well as being unable to fairly handle power, women are ill equipped for philosophical reasoning.) > Usually, all it takes is a couple of > good *ahem* interludes of vigorous lovemaking by the All Amerikan Male to > transform the Killer Queens into submissive passive women. I remember the hero. Isn't he handsome. One look and you go all weak at the knees. Five minutes in his company and you just want to spend the rest of your life cooking for him, ironing his shirts and, of course, having lots of his babies. The poor evil queen, who had never met a *real* man before, never stood a chance. Perhaps, once he has done showing all the evil hive queens the error of their ways, our hero will return to Earth and put an end to all this lesbian nonsense and feminist claptrap. The SF market has matured in the last half century. The potboilers I used to have to wade through in search of a decent read are now the exception rather than the norm. Even some erotic SF now portrays real people instead of some egocentric's fantasy. Only some, mind, but erotic fiction will probably always be written predominantly by misogynist hacks. I wonder how many innocent trees died to put those mid-century potboilers on drug store bookstands, and how many innocent young minds were scarred by their message. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel http://www.catweasel.org If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot them? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 22:45:58 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: joe santini Subject: Re: feminism does not equal dominance In-Reply-To: <199805060130.UAB38878@piglet.cc.uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Catweasel, I liked your reply, but I do have one comment: >On the contrary, dominance is no more feminist than submission. >Feminism is a quest for freedom. Freedom can not exist without its >partner, equality. If we are not all equal then NONE of us are truly >free. Equality has never had a thing to do with freedom. Even in the case of feminism, equality is not equivalent with freedom. Women want recognition as fully capable beings - this recognition will enable their freedom. This recognition entails freedom to move, think, be - everything women are truly fighting for. Equality has nothing to do with it. If dominance is required for this recognition to be made, then I'm all for it. If submission is required... well... a man can be submissive to a foreign king in order to achieve his own ends eventually. I don't doubt women could do the same, and have. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Have you no respect for the past? For what was thought and believed by your foremothers?" "Why, no," she said. "Why should we? They are all gone. They knew less than we do. If we are not beyond them, we are unworthy of them--and unworthy of the children who must go beyond us." -Charlotte Gilman, "Herland" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * joseph santini haverford college '01 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 20:13:10 -0700 Reply-To: laorka@meer.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" Subject: Re: book identification? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 22:07:21 +0100 > >From: "M.J.Norman" snip. > > Perhaps someone can help me out. snip. Lesley Hall wrote: > I think this may be _Soulsinger_ by, as far as I recollect (It does not appear > to be any longer on my shelves) Ardath Mayhar. Good call--it looks like the title may be _Soul-Singer of Tyrros_. (1981) It looks like a good read. Others by Mayhar include: A Place of Silence (1988 Makra Choria (1987) Carrots and Miggle (1986) Medicine Walk (1985) The Runes of the Lyre (1982). One of these (now I can't remember which) is classified as Sci-Fi in the library catalog. :D AND it has a 10 year old female lead--someone who tries to protect an intelligent species she discovered. I'll let you know if it seems like feminist sci-fi. Thank-you Monica and Lesley. This is another one I'm going to have to read. I'm really getting into the Juvenile Science Fiction these days. Does anyone know what this author is up to these days? I didn't do a complete search (being in a hurry, as usual), but my perfunctory search makes it look like she hasn't published for a while. Lindy -- "If I had my past life to do over again, I'd make all the same mistakes--only sooner." --Tallulah Bankhead http://www.dotgraph.com Resources associated with women, disabilities and writing. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 22:31:51 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Handmaid's Tale In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19980505001017.00698ce0@mail.tm.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 5 May 1998, Jen wrote: > The thing that terrified me, is with so many men still in control, a strong > political coup or something along those lines could turn this into reality! Something very much like that (or worse) happened in Afganistan two years ago. It's still there, happening. Women, among other things are not allowed to leave the house without a male relative escorting her, _never_. This is not science fiction, but reality, going on for about two years already. Do you see anyone trying to do anything about it? I mean, here we go - a contemporary society with women having less rights than animals, and the world did not end. The Earth is still turning, and the TV news is still on. If tomorrow this happens in US, people will swallow it just the same, I'm afraid. The reason I don't think it'll happen any time soon here, is that US overall culture is very non-violent (you probably won't agree, but it's true - the only place I've seen here anywhere close to normal real world was South Bronx, and even that was pretty safe by the standards of my home country). This low level of violence in everyday life (not TV, which is also pretty sterile here, by the way) will make it more difficult for the majority of males to readily start beating to death any woman they might see walking alone, or with her face uncovered. So even if an order like that is established here (e.g. by a coup) it would be difficult to enforce. The reason it won't happen in the whole world at once is because the societies on this planet are way too diverse to suddenly come to a common denominator on any grounds. Even Nazism and Communism failed to take over the whole world, even thoguth the first was extremely violent, and the second in some sense appealed to the majority of the world population (after all, the majority of people on the Earth still _are_ dreadfully poor). This is something that always puzzled me about sf societies - they are always so uniform, as if the whole planet suddenly became some kind of giant suburb - one culture, one government, one ideology, one religion, and one opposition to a group (also singular) of evil or heroic aliens/newcomers/underground dissenters, who are determined to upset the order of things. Always makes me wonder what they have done to their minorities. Concerning the Lysistrata, in my humble opinion, it's just a "humourous" male fantasy of suddenly having to "win over" all women at once, including one's own wives. In my humble opinion again, it's about as feminist, as an HBO porn movie set in a convent. I'm afraid that sometimes we tend to see feminism in any presentation of "female power", even when it negates or ridicules the concept. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf P.S. Afganistan is not the only country where women are not people by law. There might be more of those than the progressive Western societies. It's not long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. It's here, now, and the only thing that separates most of us from it is the blessing of being born in the right place. Or some luck dealing with the US Immigration Service. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 22:51:34 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: feminism does not equal dominance In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19980505224558.0072ad3c@haverford.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 5 May 1998, joe santini wrote: > Equality has never had a thing to do with freedom. Even in the case of > feminism, equality is not equivalent with freedom. Women want recognition > as fully capable beings - this recognition will enable their freedom. This > recognition entails freedom to move, think, be - everything women are truly > fighting for. Equality has nothing to do with it. No kidding. Women are "fully capable beings" but they are not equal, and equality is not even relevant! They should have put this definition into that failed constitutional Amendment about gender equality. I'm sure a lot more men would agree to "recognize" women as capable being, as long as they don't claim to be equal and stay where they are. Let them rather be evil and dominating, but not equal, no-no. If dominance is required > for this recognition to be made, then I'm all for it. If submission is > required... well... a man can be submissive to a foreign king in order to > achieve his own ends eventually. I don't doubt women could do the same, and > have. Better a bitch than a human like yourself, ha? Easier to look down at and keep achieving "your own ends". "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 00:08:13 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: joe santini Subject: Re: feminism does not equal dominance In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Marina, Not to attack personally, but where in hell is ANYBODY equal? I don't just mean women/men, i mean men/men, and even among groups. There is no equality. Equality is some stupid concept people came up with long ago to make some idiots happy and let people think this country was something special. Equality is a lie created by the dominant male heirarchy and perpetrated by everyone else. If people were all equal, society would instanteously collapse. I don't mean "our society", which by all rights (i think) SHOULD collapse, but i mean everything in general. Who would make decisions? Who would do anything? "Equal" societies don't work. Utopias invariably fail. And why should women let themselves take the short end of the stick, anyway? Why do they want to be equal? Why don't they want the superiority that's been denied them for so many years? Why don't they take it? I've noted before and elsewhere that nobody can oppress someone who doesn't believe they should be oppressed. At 10:51 nox 5/5/98 -0500, you wrote: >On Tue, 5 May 1998, joe santini wrote: > >> Equality has never had a thing to do with freedom. Even in the case of >> feminism, equality is not equivalent with freedom. Women want recognition >> as fully capable beings - this recognition will enable their freedom. This >> recognition entails freedom to move, think, be - everything women are truly >> fighting for. Equality has nothing to do with it. > >No kidding. Women are "fully capable beings" but they are not equal, and >equality is not even relevant! They should have put this definition into >that failed constitutional Amendment about gender equality. I'm sure a >lot more men would agree to "recognize" women as capable being, as long >as they don't claim to be equal and stay where they are. Let them rather >be evil and dominating, but not equal, no-no. > > > If dominance is required >> for this recognition to be made, then I'm all for it. If submission is >> required... well... a man can be submissive to a foreign king in order to >> achieve his own ends eventually. I don't doubt women could do the same, and >> have. > >Better a bitch than a human like yourself, ha? Easier to look down at and >keep achieving "your own ends". > > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > happens to be selling at the time." > Naomi Wolf > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Have you no respect for the past? For what was thought and believed by your foremothers?" "Why, no," she said. "Why should we? They are all gone. They knew less than we do. If we are not beyond them, we are unworthy of them--and unworthy of the children who must go beyond us." -Charlotte Gilman, "Herland" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * joseph santini haverford college '01 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 17:14:54 +1200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anita Easton Subject: Re: BDG Halfway Human and being an it In-Reply-To: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah's message of "Tue, 5 May 1998 11:43:05 -0700" Jessie Stickgold-Sarah writes: > I think the word "it" meant "it", pretty flat out. Val says at one > point that she doesn't like the word because it seems to imply > non-consciousness (or something like that) and Tedla says that that > makes it even closer to the original Gammadian. My impression was > that "it" meant "a non-sentient thing with no gender". To give it a > much more subtle interpretation may be to overinterpret. I really liked the use of "it". To me "it" means variously non-sentient, non-human, non-animate or sub-adult - all things I would find insulting and dehumanising when applied to adult humans. I would find it really hard to refer to a human being as "it". However it is Tedla's pronoun of choice, and who am I to ignore someone's choice of pronoun? How people name themselves is IMHO really important, and something that should be respected. However, when it reflects the person's lack of self-esteem, or even self-loathing, I would not wish to participate in reinforcing those views. I guess this really struck a chord for me. As someone with multiple personalities I am struggling with rehabilitating alters who have various degrees of self-loathing, and who express this through their (chosen or given) names. It was really hard for me to handle an alter who was called "The Monster in the Castle" ("The Monster" for short), she insisted that it was her name, both given and chosen and that it was what she deserved. I couldn't bring myself to call her a monster, yet I wasn't respecting her choice if I didn't. (In the end we negotiated that I could call her TMTC, and eventually she gave up that view of herself and that name, and took a new one) Anyway, to try to tie together the rambling... I don't know what I would've done had I been Val, she is clearly politicised enough to know the strength of naming - to reject the argument that "it" is simply "accurate". Just as I reject calling a young woman a "girl", or a woman a "lady" and the use of generic "he" Anita (rambling off into the sunset :) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 17:16:24 +1200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anita Easton Subject: Re: BDG Halfway Human In-Reply-To: John Bertland's message of "Tue, 5 May 1998 11:01:42 -0400" John Bertland writes: > I did not find the book particularly entertaining at all; rather, I > found it to be turgid with a spectacularly unsatisfying ending. As > with Did anyone find any merit in the ending at all? It seemed like a total cop out, but I'm hoping I missed something. Anita ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 02:23:09 -0400 Reply-To: ligeia@concentric.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lilith Organization: Sanity Assassins, Inc. Subject: Re: feminism does not equal dominance MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm delurking to jump in here: joe santini wrote: > Marina, > > Not to attack personally, but where in hell is ANYBODY equal? I don't just > mean women/men, i mean men/men, and even among groups. There is no > equality. I'm sorry -- and this is not meant to be a personal attack either, but: huh? Isn't saying "there is no equality" rather sweeping? Besides, I think that you are confused over what "equality" is supposed to mean. It doesn't mean that everyone is the same and has the same abilities as everybody else, it means that everyone has the same _rights_ as everybody else. That means, no special privileges _or_ restrictions arbitrarily based on anyone because of characteristics over which they have no control, like what level of society they were born in, or race, or sex. Of _course_ there are people who are smarter, faster, stronger, etc., than other people: should we give someone who is smarter or faster a special set of rights that average or below average people (in whatever field) don't get? Should we let one race or sex dominate the other for no other reason but that difference? I think not. > Equality is some stupid concept people came up with long ago to > make some idiots happy and let people think this country was something > special. Equality is a lie created by the dominant male heirarchy and > perpetrated by everyone else. If people were all equal, society would > instanteously collapse. I don't mean "our society", which by all rights (i > think) SHOULD collapse, but i mean everything in general. Turning a concept upside down doesn't always result in a new truism. And why should this society collapse? So that the strong and ruthless can take over (again)? Or you don't really believe that societal collapse results in the meek inheriting the earth? People always talk very glibly about how "rotten" modern society and culture is, but they are silent when it comes to what they think will come rushing in to fill the void should it suddenly all crumble. Not, I think, Utopia. > And why should women let themselves take the short end of > the stick, anyway? Why do they want to be equal? Why don't they want the > superiority that's been denied them for so many years? No thanks, I don't want to run people's lives. I always thought the efforts of men to keep their dominator status was stupid and short-sighted; I don't feel like imitating them. I have a life of my own.That's all women want: the same thing that men (when they think about it) want -- power over their own life, not anybody else's. That is what equality means. Lilith -- ********** http://www.concentric.net/~Ligeia/ *The Web * http://members.tripod.com/~othiym/ *Universe* http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/2527/ ********** http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Amphitheatre/5057/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 02:09:30 CDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: OT - Re: [*FSFFU*] feminism does not equal dominance Content-Type: text/plain >Not to attack personally, but where in hell is ANYBODY equal? I don't >just mean women/men, i mean men/men, and even among groups. This is an excellent point. Even in groups of people who we are *supposed* to be on a level with, we compare where they are to where we are. Who's happier with their job, who's got the better love life, who's making more money, and at what age, who's got the nicer house, nicer car, who's got cuter kids, a better/more sane family... the list goes on. And we're in fact *encouraged* to make those comparisons all the time. The big dumb beauty-mongering society we're in *relies* on women checking each other out, seeing who has the nicer clothes, better makeup, clearer complexion, 'tighter stomach', thinner thighs, nicer jewelry and so on. The list is endless. Whether it's inherent or learned, people in our society really aren't interested in being *equal*. If we were, we'd all stop checking out what our neighbors have and just be happy with what we had. >There is no equality. Equality is some stupid concept people came up >with long ago to make some idiots happy and let people think this >country was something special. Equality is a lie created by the >dominant male heirarchy and perpetrated by everyone else. Really, 'equality' is an excellent marketing strategy. Because 'equality' relies on us checking out the 'haves' so we can figure out what we 'have-not' and go about getting it. And nothing is ever going to be equal, because things just don't work out that way. But capitalism relies on us trying to attain that elusive 'equality' so *then* we can go find our newly-purchased laurels and rest upon them. >If people were all equal, society would instanteously collapse. I >don't mean "our society", which by all rights (i think) SHOULD >collapse, but i mean everything in general. Who would make decisions? >Who would do anything? "Equal" societies don't work. I don't know that we've ever seen an 'equal' society. Not because they always collapse (well, they do, but that's not the reason), but because we just aren't that *nice*. Human beings, I mean. When it comes down to it, we'd rather have the entire loaf of bread than split it with our neighbor. We like to tell ourselves that we'd gladly split our bread with our neighbor, if they needed it, but that often isn't the case. In times when everyone is suffering equally, we understand another's pain well enough to offer help whenever we're capable of giving it. But if we're doing all right and our neighbor is poor? Then our neighbor must be a good-for-nothing bum who could hold a job if s/he'd just *try* rather than someone just like you who's had some really crummy luck lately. And no, this isn't *always* true, but it's true a lot more than we like to think. Why else do we complain about the state of affairs, and then complain about having to pay taxes to our government which is trying to improve said state of affairs? (We Americans are especially guilty of this, I believe, having never been in a country besides the U.S.) >Utopias invariably fail. And why should women let themselves take the >short end of the stick, anyway? Why do they want to be equal? Why >don't they want the superiority that's been denied them for so many >years? Why don't they take it? I've noted before and elsewhere that >nobody can oppress someone who doesn't believe they should be >oppressed. And it's pretty easy to convince someone that they deserve to be oppressed if you can continue to ignore their capabilities, achievements, and potential and insist on treating them like livestock. You treat someone like dirt long enough, and eventually all but the very very strongest will come to believe it, if only a little, and sometimes a little bit is enough. Surly, Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@hotmail.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 03:51:44 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Melnjo Subject: Re: book identification? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi everyone; I've been a fan of Ardath Mayhar for many years and have several of her books in my collection. The correct title for the book we're talking about is "Soul- Singer of Tyrnos", not Tyrros. It is a good read. Thank you very much Lindy, for finding some more of her books I didn't know about. << Others by Mayhar include: A Place of Silence (1988 Makra Choria (1987) Carrots and Miggle (1986) Medicine Walk (1985) The Runes of the Lyre (1982)>> There are several other titles I know of; 3 classed as SF. Lords of the Triple Moons (1983) Khi to Freedom (1983) Golden Dream: A Fuzzy Odyssey (1982) - (based on a species created by H. Beam Piper) There are 2 others which I have read and enjoyed, but don't know classification or dates, because I don't know where my copies disappeared to. How the Gods Wove in Kyrannon The Seekers of Shar-Nuhn I'm not sure she can be classed as a feminist author in terms of espousing a specifically feminist story line. But, since much of her work was aimed at a young audience, I feel that the examples she portrayed of very strong, capable and heroic female characters and protagonists served to introduce some of the core concepts of femimism to that audience. Besides, when someone like Andre Norton intoduced "Soul-Singer of Tyrnos" with, "Ms. Mayhar is one of the outstanding writers of fantasy!" who's going to argue? In my neck of the woods, only feminists are called "Ms" - usually by other feminists. I haven't seen any mention of her work in the 90's, so am afraid she may no longer be alive (seems I heard a rumor to that effect). I would certainly be glad to be proven wrong on that one if anybody knows. Mary-Ellen Guffey, CO ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 04:12:21 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: BDG Almost Human Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Once again I love the book picked for the month's read, but my, how depressing. I couldn't help but think of Tedla as "she" even though it was adamant, and even proud, of being it. Not to have sexual drive or yearning be a part of every day life is an interesting concept. I think the idea was that since the blands had no sexual orientation they also had no sexually pleasurable feelings (kind of like the ideal madonna-wife so prized by mankind). I didn't know what to think of this idea, it certainly made the proscription of sexual interaction between humans and blands understandable since not only did the blands have no free will or choice in the sexual relationship they also got absolutely nothing out of it but another way to serve their masters. Our society's being so reluctant to separate the sexual act from procreation would enforce such a ban, but on Gammadis that separation seemed complete. (I wonder, what would make a woman give birth if she got nothing out of it but the gratitude of her nation. Some very obedient folk of course would do so, but I think the birth rate would be mighty low if there were no babies to reward the moms, no motherhood so to speak.) Anyway, back to my original thought about lack of sexual enjoyment---since both sexes are raised alike until their enforced puberty, where could the sexual feelings go? Babies exhibit sexual enjoyment, little boy babies delight in pulling on that appendage whenever they can, but I guess I can't say I've seen girl babies creating sexual sensations in any way. However, the same nerves are there, so once the children were of an age to know about these nerves, why wouldn't they stimulate them? There seemed to be no sexual interaction among the blands in their naked sleeping arrangement. Is that just one of the ideas that we have to accept to get on with the story? I really wanted to think that Tedla's lack of metamorphosis was a mistake. The idea presented by Patricia Mathews that it was made a bland specifically so it could be used as a sex slave was just nauseating. Well, there is no end to the depravity of humankind, but wow, this was not a thought I had while reading the book. OK this is long enough. But didn't you love the idea of an economy based on the selling of knowledge? Would Bill Gates be king? Joyce Jones ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 05:17:32 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Re: Ardath Mayhar MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >I haven't seen any mention of her work in the 90's, so am afraid she may no >longer be alive (seems I heard a rumor to that effect). I would certainly be >glad to be proven wrong on that one if anybody knows. > >Mary-Ellen >Guffey, CO Mary Ellen, Found this site. A zine on spec fic. etc. The first issue Mar/Apr 98 has a story and an essay by Mayhar. This does not of course prove she's alive, but at least she was still writing sometime in the 90's (the essay at least?) I will let you know if I find anything else. This is the table of contents page. It is a tease to get folks to subscribe, but does have bits of both her story and essay here. http://www.johnbradt.com/e-zine/v.1/contents.htm cheers, donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 06:03:00 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Re: feminism does not equal dominance MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit from joe santini: << And why should women let themselves take the short end of the stick, anyway? Why do they want to be equal? Why don't they want the superiority that's been denied them for so many years? Why don't they take it? >> LOL - Joe your life's vision has truly inspired me. (irrepressible chuckling here) I just posted off list to Laura Quilter and asked her to block your posts until you have completed your course work in feminist studies.........How's that for taking my superiority? Joyous regards (ROFL), Donna ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 21:21:53 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Le Comte Subject: Re: feminism does not equal dominance In-Reply-To: <008501bd78d6$27a37480$a0ae2499@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 06:03 A 6/05/98 -0400, you wrote: >from joe santini: ><< And why should women let themselves take the short end of >the stick, anyway? Why do they want to be equal? Why don't they want the >superiority that's been denied them for so many years? Why don't they take >it? >> > >LOL - Joe your life's vision has truly inspired me. (irrepressible chuckling here) I >just posted off list to Laura Quilter and asked her to block your posts until you have >completed your course work in feminist studies.........How's that for taking my >superiority? > >Joyous regards (ROFL), Donna > I second that motion .... *maniacal laughter*:) I just this minute finished watching a film, where in one scene - a 16 year old girl is levelling a shotgun at her father - he says sarcastically, and somewhat belligerently: " You think your so big and tough behind that gun, dont you?" She replies..."well, of course, you would know that better than I, Dadda " Cheers - Julieanne ppp98@cs.net.au __________________________________________________________________ | | | FATAL ERROR! | | | | Reality.sys Corrupt! Reboot UNIVERSE to correct | | | |________________________________________________________________| ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 08:19:21 -0400 Reply-To: ligeia@concentric.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lilith Organization: Sanity Assassins, Inc. Subject: Re: Almost Human MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have not yet read the book, but I've been reading the posts about the off-putting effect of Tedla's character being designated "it" and the lack of ability to enjoy sex that the blands have and I thought of another character in another work that that provides an interesting opposite to this character. In Neil Gaiman's "Sandman" series the character of Desire was considered to be neither male nor female but the epitome of everything desirable in both; Desire was also referred to as "it" but here the pronoun was not at all reductive to the personality and power of this figure. I know that these are graphic novels so might not really fall under the designation of what we are supposed to be talking about on this list but I thought I'd proffer that as an example of how a character could be referred to in the neutral pronoun and yet that not be meant to be in any way diminishing. Maybe if Tedla had been shown as a strong, vital character instead of the victim of circumstance and bad people as it seems to be (I have to read the book to see if that is how it is throughout, so excuse me if I'm wrong about it, but all my opinions are formed from everyone's description of the plot), then the use of "it" would not seem so alienating. Lilith -- ********** http://www.concentric.net/~Ligeia/ *The Web * http://members.tripod.com/~othiym/ *Universe* http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/2527/ ********** http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Amphitheatre/5057/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 08:10:37 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: BDG Halfway Human and being an it In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 6 May 1998, Anita Easton wrote: > > I guess this really struck a chord for me. As someone with multiple > personalities I am struggling with rehabilitating alters who have > various degrees of self-loathing, and who express this through their > (chosen or given) names. It was really hard for me to handle an alter > who was called "The Monster in the Castle" ("The Monster" for short), > she insisted that it was her name, both given and chosen and that it > was what she deserved. I couldn't bring myself to call her a monster, > yet I wasn't respecting her choice if I didn't. > > (In the end we negotiated that I could call her TMTC, and eventually > she gave up that view of herself and that name, and took a new one) I can really understand wanting to call yourself that. Grrrr! I'm big and nasty and scary and mean; DON'T MESS WITH ME~~! On the subject: try to find a short story by Richard Matheson(?) called "Born of Man & Woman." When it was first published `30 years ago it was taken as a monster tale. When my oldest daughter read it, she demanded to know "what's wrong with the little boy?" and "Why are they abusing him?" Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 11:09:17 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: joe santini Subject: Re: OT - Re: [*FSFFU*] feminism does not equal dominance In-Reply-To: <19980506070931.4711.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Just for the record, I thought Barbara's letter was pretty spot-on. And again, for the record, I think Marina and I agree on one thing: we want an equalitarian government. I want a government which treats people equally. If there's going to be inequality, great, let US decide who's going to be "better." I mean, don't you get sick of movie stars and the like getting off scot-free in cases? And back fo science fiction: are there any books with equalitarian governments and their results upon the female portion of the society? joe * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Have you no respect for the past? For what was thought and believed by your foremothers?" "Why, no," she said. "Why should we? They are all gone. They knew less than we do. If we are not beyond them, we are unworthy of them--and unworthy of the children who must go beyond us." -Charlotte Gilman, "Herland" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * joseph santini haverford college '01 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 09:34:39 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Living in a caravan In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 4 May 1998, Alison Page wrote: > What you call a trailer. Incidentally it is far rarer for poor people to > live in 'trailer parks' in Britain than it seems to be in the USA. In many > places caravan sites are only given planning permission if the people are > not in 'permanent residence' - what this effectively means is that everyone > is turfed out for one or two months a year and has to go and find somewhere > else to live or be homeless, which I think is very cruel. > The other people who live in caravans are 'travellers' (more or less > equivalent to gypsies, though ethnically diverse) who live in caravans > which are at least in principle on the move. Some stay for months or years > in the same spot however. These 'sites' are generally illegal and with no > services like clean water or sewage disposal. They are thus very dirty and > insanitary places, and the travellers are generally disliked by locals. My > sister used to have a job organising education for 'traveller' children.. Like out COlonias, used by workers up from Mexico. Of course, the answer to that is quite simple, if expensive. Run in water & sewer to certain legal campsites and offer them at a reasonable rate. > Finally some young unemployed homeless people emulate this type of > lifestyle but with more of a hippy emphasis (I'm simplifying) and these are > generally called 'new-age travellers', tend to be pagans, and get beaten up > by the police. > And they wonder why our law enforcement officers used to be called Da Pigs.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 10:07:09 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edrie Sobstyl Subject: Re: BDG Halfway Human and being an it In-Reply-To: <199805051821.OAA28985@asylum.apocalypse.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 5 May 1998, ME Hunter wrote: > Edrie wrote: > > >I find it almost more interesting that it's the blands who become the > >workforce for their society, and that they have been biologically created > >specifically for this purpose. > > I don't believe this is the case. Gilman makes it fairly clear that the > Gammadians made themselves default-neuter in an attempt to curb their > population and lessen their impact on their environment. There is no mention > of a *plan* to subjugate the blands. > Although the author does not go into detail on this point, the implication > seemed to be that they all became default-neuter, with sex becoming a > privilege earned by merit. The effect of this was to create a sexually > differentiated elite and a neuter drudge-force, but I do not believe this to > have been the plan. I did overstate the "specifically created" claim, but I think it's clear that sex is earned by intelligence, and this is in part why Tedla has such a rough time -- it is bright and capable. (I think there's even a very very tacit suggestion that Tedla *would* have been sexed if the demand for more and more blands hadn't put it in the "wrong group" so to speak. While it's true that the original intent may have been mere population control, it is also made clear that the execution of that plan went astray of its intent very early on. We are given an inkling of this early in the book, when the overseers of the maturing youngsters express their surprise that so many blands are still being created - this suggests that the need to control population has passed, so why are there still so many blands? Humans who don't want to take on particular tasks, like childrearing, ask "why would I want to do that? It would make me no better than a bland." Later in the book, these implications are stated outright. When the population control experiment is revealed to Galele, it is made clear that there was never an explicit plan to subjugate the blands, but that the conditions that would make it easy to do so *were* deliberately bred (although by rather indirect means), and their subjugation was pursued "for their own good" to the point where society became utterly reliant on bland labour and could no longer function "properly" without them. >From p. 407 in my edition: "Humans are selected. The neuters are the natural state. Of course they constitute the least intelligent third. We would be idiots to make it otherwise." and later on the same page: "Faintly, Magister Galele said, 'And what a handy labor force you've gained in the process'. 'That was never the object', the matriculator snapped. 'You don't know our history. There was a time when our population threatened the very existence of life. We had to find a solution. Genetic alteration was the most humane thing we could have done. We have killed no one. There have been no famines or epidemics. As for the neuters, we have provided for their every need. We have integrated them into our communities, given them useful work ...' 'Until you couldn't do without them', Galele said. 'Your population is falling now, isn't it? Every year you need more blands, and that means fewer humans. Your numbers are almost too small to sustain the way you live now. Isn't it time for the experiment to end?' 'You don't know what you're talking about', the matriculator said. 'We can't end it.' Here the conversation between Galele and the matriculator ends, on a very unconvincing note -- just "we can't" and nothing more. edrie ***************************** Edrie Sobstyl School of Arts and Humanities JO 31 University of Texas at Dallas P.O. Box 830688 Richardson Tx 75083-0688 USA (972) 883-2365 esobstyl@utdallas.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 10:41:18 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edrie Sobstyl Subject: Re: Almost Human Comments: To: Lilith In-Reply-To: <35505548.6D9103F9@concentric.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 6 May 1998, Lilith wrote: > Maybe if Tedla had been > shown as a strong, vital character instead of the victim of circumstance > and bad people as it seems to be (I have to read the book to see if that > is how it is throughout, so excuse me if I'm wrong about it, but all my > opinions are formed from everyone's description of the plot), then the > use of "it" would not seem so alienating. I hope our discussions of Tedla's "itness" don't compell you to avoid the book, Lilith! It is more a consciousness-raising device than an alienating one, imho, although it is clearly alienating *for Tedla*. Tedla *is* shown as a strong and vital character, *and* as the victim of circumstance and bad people -- it's the tension between the two that forms the backbone of the plot. edrie ************************** Edrie Sobstyl School of Arts and Humanities University of Texas at Dallas P.O. Box 830688 Richardson Tx 75083-0688 (972) 883-2365 (972) 883-2989 (fax) esobstyl@utdallas.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 17:54:47 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "M.J.Norman" Subject: Re: feminism does not equal dominance Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Joe said (among other things :) >Not to attack personally, but where in hell is ANYBODY equal? I don't just >mean women/men, i mean men/men, and even among groups. There is no >equality. Equality is some stupid concept people came up with long ago to >make some idiots happy and let people think this country was something >special. Equality is a lie created by the dominant male heirarchy and >perpetrated by everyone else. snip Now anyone can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong and perhaps Lilith has said it better, but if you're refering obliquely to the Declaration of Independence, where "all men are created equal", I think the interpretation should be that we (all of us, whatever race, religion, etc) are (or should be) equal *in the eyes of the law*. That's not to say we are treated that way in reality, but that's what I learned in school. Naturally people are not equal, not in natural gifts, social position, personality, wealth, anything. Even our Founding Fathers (sigh) knew that much. But under the law, we should be _treated_ as equal. And that, I believe, was the purpose of the ERA. Gender was not specifically included in the DofI/Bill of Rights/Constitution - as it darn well should be. Of course, passing the ERA doesn't mean 'things' would automatically be 'fixed', but it might give women in the US a wedge to work with! Personally, I think the US Constitution and the Dec of Ind are pretty good documents as those things go. (That's the trouble with government. You figure out a good system and then people go and mess it all up! ;-) ) By way of comparison (and completely off topic I suppose), the UK Handicapped lobby is having trouble (UK members put me right if my info is old) getting a comprehensive non-discrimmination law passed in Parliament. One of the objections is the expense of improving access to the many very old (and very small/inconvenient/historic) buildings which are Listed and can't be changed. I even read a letter to the editor in the Daily Telegraph from an architect who claimed that the aesthetic design of buildings would be impaired if architects had to include ramps, etc for access. Monica A Californian living in the UK ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 12:55:12 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elisa Kay Sparks Subject: Re: OT - Re: [*FSFFU*] feminism does not equal dominance Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >And back to science fiction: are there any books with equalitarian >governments and their results upon the female portion of the society? > >joe >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Joe: I have a web page on Imagined Sexual Futures at http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~sparks/sffem.html which lists some Feminist/ Egalitarian Utopias, among other categories. I think Marge Piercy's WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME is perhaps the most successful of these. But she follows Shulamith Firestone in developing the idea that in order to be truly equal, women will have to give up the power/responsiblity of reproduction. Elisa Sparks (BMC '73) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Dr. Elisa Kay Sparks e-mail: sparks@hubcap.clemson.edu Department of English Office phone: (864) 656-5410 Strode Tower FAX: (864)656-1345 Clemson University Clemson, SC 29634-1503 http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~sparks/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 18:18:44 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Re: feminism does not equal dominance In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19980506000813.00733514@haverford.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It was 06/05/98 05:08:13 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful occasions, I observed joe santini , hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > Marina, > > Not to attack personally, but where in hell is ANYBODY equal? I don't just > mean women/men, i mean men/men, and even among groups. There is no > equality. Equality is some stupid concept people came up with long ago to > make some idiots happy and let people think this country was something > special. Equality is a lie created by the dominant male heirarchy and > perpetrated by everyone else. If people were all equal, society would > instanteously collapse. I don't mean "our society", which by all rights (i > think) SHOULD collapse, but i mean everything in general. Who would make > decisions? Who would do anything? "Equal" societies don't work. Utopias > invariably fail. And why should women let themselves take the short end of > the stick, anyway? Why do they want to be equal? Why don't they want the > superiority that's been denied them for so many years? Why don't they take > it? I've noted before and elsewhere that nobody can oppress someone who > doesn't believe they should be oppressed. Feminism = freedom = equality. Equality is NOT a lie, it is a goal. You appear to be confusing earned and granted position with usurped and enforced position. Equality is sometimes mistaken for sameness. Equal rights does not mean that everyone should be the same. Equal rights means that everyone should be entitled to the same opportunities. which of those opportunities we pursue should be our choice, and how successful we are in our pursuit of those opportunities should depend on our efforts and abilities. Equality is sometimes mistaken for anarchy. This, I think, is the "equality" you claim would cause the instantaneous collapse of society. If so, then you are right. In a perfect world we would not need government. We, however, are not perfect. It is our imperfections which give us our characters, our individuality. Equality and freedom mean taking responsibility for your own life. That it is necessary to delegate some of that responsibility does not make you any less free. Note: delegate! Not relinquish. What seems like domination or submission to you is not necessarily so. Example: After a natural disaster the village have a meeting to discuss ways and means to make good the damage. It becomes obvious that Angela is physically totally unsuited to the heavy physical work required. She does, however, have excellent man-management skills, and agrees to organise the work crews. When she tells Ed, Bob and Marcie to go and gather some lumber to patch the school roof, they do so immediately, not because they are submissive, but because they have delegated responsibility for allocating labour resources. Angela knows that they can be left to deal with the roof, whilst they know that if they run into an unexpected problem which is beyond their abilities Angela will find the right person to help. Example: In a good dom/sub relationship (not my bag, but there is, as I have said before, nothing wrong with any relationship which works) there is not a dominant partner. The relationship works because there is love and trust and equality at its foundation. The sex games are an extension to that foundation. Example: I am preaching to you because I believe you are horribly wrong. I am not being domineering. I am not trying to force my will upon you. You are free to delete this letter at any time. It is my fervent wish that you read this to the end, but I cannot and would not force you to. Once you have finished reading it I do not want you to adopt my ideas as your own. I want you to think about my ideas, yes, but then I want you to go off and formulate your own ideas. If, after you have _really_ thought about what I, and others, have said to you you still feel the same way then please, discuss it with me further, but not until you have truly thought it through. I will listen to well reasoned arguments. So endeth the lesson. This discussion is now sufficiently off topic that it should really be dropped or taken off list. It is my opinion that any further posts on list address Robin's original post or my reply to it. We were, if you recall, discussing claims that having a dominant female villain made a book feminist SF. Well I was, anyway. Robin went further than that, but she lost me when she started citing works I have no experience with. We kind of got side-tracked when young Mr. Santini took issue with the one serious point in my otherwise light-hearted reply. Such is life. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel http://www.catweasel.org Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 17:25:32 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Subject: Re: BDG Halfway Human and being an it Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-05-05 14:44:00 EDT, you write: << What I found most disturbing was how hard it was for me not to do this. I was constantly picturing the blands as one gender or the other, frequently depending on how they were acting or how other people were behaving towards them. It was sort of appalling, really. >> Why? We live on a world of two-sex species, including our own. We're accustomed to interpreting behaviors in this way, so it would take quite a wrench to think otherwise. Maybe more so for those of us who haven't been reading gender-benders for years, as some members of the list have. I found that Tedla seemed more like a he than a she, but other readers saw it the other way. I find that interesting. Maybe one reason is that I've seen many more boys than girls throwing rocks at the Other, like Tedla and its compatriot did. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 17:35:27 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Subject: Re: BDG Halfway Human Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-05-05 15:22:18 EDT, you write: << That was written by local author (New Mexico) Melinda Snodgrass as the script she hoped to convince the Trek people to hire her with. Those things NEVER get aired. Hah! She later left NextGen because Roddenberry wanted to push a vision of the future as having outgrown all conflict. > >> "Measure of a Man" was a well-thought-out episode that often shows up on lists of favorite ST episodes. I agree with Melinda that Rodenberry was unrealistic to think we can outgrow conflict in a few centuries, because we haven't changed in the last many centuries. But I AM tired of the snarling, surly, darkly motivated, 1990s kinds of beings that current ST characters are becoming. I like my heroes to be heroes! You know, admirable! Full of integrity and courage and values! barbara ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 17:31:38 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: feminism does not equal dominance In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19980506000813.00733514@haverford.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 6 May 1998, joe santini wrote: > Marina, > > Not to attack personally, but where in hell is ANYBODY equal? I don't just > mean women/men, i mean men/men, and even among groups. There is no > equality. There isn't. Nor there exists equal opportunity for people of all races. Does that mean we should embrace racism? Equality is some stupid concept people came up with long ago to > make some idiots happy and let people think this country was something > special. The concept of equality was invented long before this country, believe it or not. Why don't they want the > superiority that's been denied them for so many years? Why don't they take > it? I've noted before and elsewhere that nobody can oppress someone who > doesn't believe they should be oppressed. Why do African-Americans and other US minorities want to be equal? Won't it be easier just to exterminate all those stinking whites? Or simply shift them away into the dumps of the society where they had for centuries kept others? "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 16:42:23 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kendra Smith Subject: Re: feminism does not equal dominance Comments: To: Lilith In-Reply-To: <355001CC.5ECCC6D@concentric.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > No thanks, I don't want to run people's lives. I always thought the efforts of men > to keep their dominator status was stupid and short-sighted; I don't feel like > imitating them. I have a life of my own.That's all women want: the same thing that > men (when they think about it) want -- power over their own life, not anybody > else's. That is what equality means. I know this doesn't have anything to do with feminist speculative fiction, but I just wanted to comment on this thread of discussion. I am admittedly new to the feminist movement, and I agree with Lilith: I don't think we (women) want to be in a -dominant- position. We simply want to be allowed the freedoms and rights that men enjoy. A fine example of this (and this is what -really- made me get more interested in feminism as an outlook) is salary. I was looking over average salaries for Professors of various large universities in the US, and I was amazed to find that on the average, male Profs make about $20,000 more than do their female counterparts. Whywhywhy? I know that this debate has been going on for some time, but it was never -real- to me (if this makes sense). Sorry for going off topic. Kendra O'Neal Smith Tristesse7@aol.com echo1@imap3.asu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 17:07:08 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kendra Smith Subject: Re: feminism does not equal dominance Comments: To: "M.J.Norman" In-Reply-To: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Now anyone can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong and perhaps Lilith has > said it better, but if you're refering obliquely to the Declaration of > Independence, where "all men are created equal", I think the interpretation > should be that we (all of us, whatever race, religion, etc) are (or should > be) equal *in the eyes of the law*. That's not to say we are treated that > way in reality, but that's what I learned in school. Naturally people are > not equal, not in natural gifts, social position, personality, wealth, > anything. Even our Founding Fathers (sigh) knew that much. But under the > law, we should be _treated_ as equal. And that, I believe, was the purpose > of the ERA. Gender was not specifically included in the DofI/Bill of > Rights/Constitution - as it darn well should be. Of course, passing the ERA > doesn't mean 'things' would automatically be 'fixed', but it might give > women in the US a wedge to work with! This post struck me as very interesting, and (this time!!) I can relate it back to science-fiction (although it isn't particularly feminist science fiction). Has anyone ever read the short story "Harrison Bergeron" by (I think) Kurt Vonnegut Jr.? For those who have not, it is the dystopian vision of a government who -has- made everyone equal. They changed the "all men are created equal" phrase in the Declaration of Independance to read "all men are -not- created equal and it is the job of the government to render them so." They go about doing this by stifling the gifts and talents that make every person unique: those of exceeding grace must hang heavy weights upon their body to make them less graceful, those very intelligent must constantly wear a headpiece that continually blasts obnoxious loud noises in the person's ear to make him or her lose their train of thought. To me, this was -very- disturbing. To have a completely "equal" society would mean to do exactly this: stifle the gifts and talents that we all have. There has to be a better way. Kendra O'Neal Smith tristesse7@aol.com echo1@imap3.asu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 17:21:52 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: feminism does not equal dominance In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 06 May 98 16:42:23 PDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >I >don't think we (women) want to be in a -dominant- position. We simply >want to be allowed the freedoms and rights that men enjoy. The brand of feminism I was raised in doesn't strive for something *less* than dominance; maybe just at right angles to it. So rather than wanting to reverse roles, or even rise (or descend) to the level of men, I really want something different. So while an equal salary would be a good start, in the long run I'd rather have excellent free childcare and a corporate structure than encouraged flextime so that parents could afford to go to work, or work part time or take time off without sabotaging their career. For instance. That's why I feel that in many ways SF is a really crucial vehicle for feminist thought: because you're not fettered by plausible futures. You think of something that would be different; you explore it; maybe it gives you a way to take action right now, make an immediate effect; maybe it just refreshes the spirit. (Or pains it, but in a way that makes you understand something new.) >They changed the "all men are >created equal" phrase in the Declaration of Independance to read "all men >are -not- created equal and it is the job of the government to render >them so." While I have Madeline L'Engle on the brain, let me quote Meg on the planet of Camazotz, where everyone *is* equal, and those who aren't get reprogrammed: "*like* is not the same as *equal*." A child at a school where "we're all equal" meant "don't admit you're better at math than everyone else because that would be like saying you're better than them" once said bitterly to me: "All the kids in my class know I'm better at math. But because my teachers all try to hide it, everyone knows it matters. If being better at math didn't make me a better person, who would care?" Perhaps the real trick is to consider all people to be of equal value, regardless of how they can be measured against one another. jessie jessie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 19:52:06 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather MacLean Subject: Re: male prof salaries Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I am admittedly new to the feminist movement, and I agree with Lilith: I >don't think we (women) want to be in a -dominant- position. We simply >want to be allowed the freedoms and rights that men enjoy. A fine >example of this (and this is what -really- made me get more interested in >feminism as an outlook) is salary. I was looking over average salaries >for Professors of various large universities in the US, and I was amazed >to find that on the average, male Profs make about $20,000 more than do >their female counterparts. Whywhywhy? 'Cuz (follow sweeping generalizations, ok?): a) Women tend to devote some time to the department as a whole, or to other causes (student groups/organizations, etc.), while their male counterparts tend to feel less guilty about just leaving the office to work on their own research (since pubs are the only thing that counts); women tend to spend more time on the classes they teach than the men; b) Since often merit systems are in place that reward pubs over and beyond tenure and promotion, men gain incremental advantages over women's salaries on a yearly basis because of a), and also c) being a prof requires--generally--60-80 hrs of work/week or more. And if you have a family and you're a woman, you're more likely to be the one taking care of other stuff around the house, which cuts down on your time you spend on research, which leads back to promotion, tenure, and merit issues. Rarely is it actual discrimination: instead, it tends to be a creeping institutional thing. Heather (Asst. Prof.) __________________________________________ "Output of your job hmaclean: > Reality is only a question of language. Unknown command - "REALITY". Try HELP." -------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 20:58:38 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Melnjo Subject: Re: OT - Re: [*FSFFU*] feminism does not equal dominance Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/6/98 4:58:17 PM, you wrote: <> Dear Elisa; I visited your page, listed above, and was surprised to find nothing listed under the Homosexuality category. If you need info and not just more time (don't we all need that), I have some suggestions. Much of Joanna Russ' work would fit, as would Katherine Forrest's, "Daughters of a Coral Dawn", etc., etc. Have you seen "Uranian Worlds; a Guide to Alternative Sexuality in Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror" by Garber and Paleo, pub. 1990? I bought mine 4 or 5 years ago - but it might still be available. It's a great web page, let me know if I can be of help. I apologize if this is territory you've already covered. Mary-Ellen Crystal Mist Glass Carving Guffey, CO ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 21:01:14 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Melnjo Subject: Re: feminism does not equal dominance Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/6/98 10:05:12 AM, you wrote: <> LOL - Joe your life's vision has truly inspired me. (irrepressible chuckling here) I just posted off list to Laura Quilter and asked her to block your posts until you have completed your course work in feminist studies.........How's that for taking my superiority? Joyous regards (ROFL), Donna >> Thank you Donna! Mary-Ellen Crystal Mist Glass Carving Guffey, CO ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 21:07:09 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Melnjo Subject: Re: Ardath Mayhar Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi Donna; Seems I owe you many thanks today. Appreciate all of the info on Mayhar!!!!, and your little discussion w/Joe Santini. Snickering witchly! THANKS! Mary-Ellen Crystal Mist Glass Carving Guffey, CO ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 13:47:29 +1200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anita Easton Subject: His-Majesty-In-Chains - The Fortunate Fall_ writes: > Equality has never had a thing to do with freedom. Even in the case of On a tangent, what do other people think of His-Majesty-In-Chains in _The Fortunate Fall_ by Raphael Carter? I found the whole sacrifice-for-freedom concept fascinating. And while we're on the subject of assigning a gender to Tedla, how many people have assigned a gender to Raphael Carter? I know I felt the female characters in TFF were sometimes less female than I would've expected from a female author, but at other times they felt spot on. Anita ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 18:43:45 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: BDG: Vote by Friday MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reminder: if you haven't yet voted for the next round of discussion books, you must do this by the end of Friday. Of course, you are welcome to participate in the discussion whether or not you vote. But you probably have an opinion about what you want to read and discuss, and how often in life does someone really ask for your opinion? The nominated books are available at either of the links below. http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/1443/index.html http://www.wenet.net/~lquilter/femsf/bdg/noms.html Once you've picked up to six books, send your votes to Terri at terriergraphics@cybertours.com! After we select six books, we'll read them in alpha order by title. However, due to the short amount of time before we discuss the first one, I'd like to start out with the book most widely available wherever group members live. If you want to participate, and you live in an area where finding books is problematic, please send me an email. When we have the list of six books, probably on Sunday, I'll send it to you to ask which would be the easiest to find (if any!). Of course, we can always order it from Mysterious Galaxy, but it would be great if there is one or two books anyone can get locally. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 23:08:56 -0400 Reply-To: ligeia@concentric.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lilith Organization: Sanity Assassins, Inc. Subject: Re: Almost Human Comments: cc: Edrie Sobstyl MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Edrie Sobstyl wrote: > On Wed, 6 May 1998, Lilith wrote: > > > Maybe if Tedla had been > > shown as a strong, vital character instead of the victim of circumstance > > and bad people as it seems to be (I have to read the book to see if that > > is how it is throughout, so excuse me if I'm wrong about it, but all my > > opinions are formed from everyone's description of the plot), then the > > use of "it" would not seem so alienating. > > I hope our discussions of Tedla's "itness" don't compell you to > avoid the book, Lilith! No, not at all -- it sounds like a very interesting book, and it's gone onto my list of books to look for as soon as I finish all the _other_ books I have started. (LOL -- so many books, so little time to read them!) I was just responding to the negative response to the designation of blands as "its." It seems as if "it" _may_ be meant in a derogatory way since the blands are considered less than fully human, while the character of Desire that I mentioned in my post is more than human -- and actually, not human at all, but a personification of a basic element of...consciousness? As a side note, there are many languages where there isn't actually a separate third-person singular pronoun for men and women, such as Finnish and Japanese. (Right? Any Finnish or Japanese people or speakers out there want to correct me if I'm wrong? I had a Finnish phrasebook _somewhere_.) Though of course there are other ways in the languages to indicate male and female; it is just that the third-person pronoun isn't it. In an essay by LeGuin she mentions her frustration (I think it was the revised preface to _Left Hand of Darkness_) with English and it's male/female/neuter thing, and how the default pronoun to refer to a person of unknown sex (like "the average person" or "the viewer") as "he", and how she suggested, instead of making up an awkward new word like "per" or "heshe" we should just use "they" and "their" for singular as well as plural designations. Well, I went on too long as usual... Lilith -- ********** http://www.concentric.net/~Ligeia/ *The Web * http://members.tripod.com/~othiym/ *Universe* http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/2527/ ********** http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Amphitheatre/5057/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 16:14:16 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tracy MacShane Subject: (Fwd) Re: "equal socities" in SF MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Ursula LeGuin's book The Dispossessed" most certainly presents a society (an anarchic one) where men and women are regarded as being equal. This is contrasted with the world the anarchists originally came from, in which materialism, capitalism and sexism are the norm. It's a book which I thoroughly recommend to those who haven't read it yet. Funny thing, I think it's definitely SF and it's very feminist in its themes, but is it "feminist SF"? Much like me, in that I'm a lesbian and a feminist, but I am NOT a "lesbian-feminist" ;-) By the way, both French and German have third-person singular non-gendered pronouns: "on" and "man", respectively. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 23:14:13 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: His-Majesty-In-Chains - The Fortunate Fall_ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > On a tangent, what do other people think of His-Majesty-In-Chains in > _The Fortunate Fall_ by Raphael Carter? I found the whole > sacrifice-for-freedom concept fascinating. > > And while we're on the subject of assigning a gender to Tedla, how > many people have assigned a gender to Raphael Carter? I know I felt > the female characters in TFF were sometimes less female than I > would've expected from a female author, but at other times they felt > spot on. > > Anita > The Fortunate Fall is a fine novel. As far as assigning a gender to Raphael goes though, I've met Carter and I still can't assign a gender to the writer. A fascinating and brilliant person though. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 00:21:21 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mcfynnan Subject: Re: bdg nomination web page Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Now I know where the nominations are, where do I send my vote? For: Mary Doria Russell's THE SPARROW Sheri S. Tepper's THE FAMILY TREE Melissa Scott's THE SHADOW MAN Please reply quickly as time is running out. Thank you ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 00:24:05 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mcfynnan Subject: Re: BDG Voting begins 5/2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit My vote: Mary Doria Russell's THE SPARROW Sheri S. Tepper's FAMILY TREE Melissa Scott's SHADOW MAN Thank you Jana McCormick (a.k.a. Mcfynnan) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 00:47:08 -0400 Reply-To: ligeia@concentric.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lilith Organization: Sanity Assassins, Inc. Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: "equal socities" in SF MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tracy MacShane wrote: > Ursula LeGuin's book The Dispossessed" most certainly presents a society > (an anarchic one) where men and women are regarded as being equal. This > is contrasted with the world the anarchists originally came from, in > which materialism, capitalism and sexism are the norm. It's a book which > I thoroughly recommend to those who haven't read it yet. Funny thing, I > think it's definitely SF and it's very feminist in its themes, but is it > "feminist SF"? Much like me, in that I'm a lesbian and a feminist, but I > am NOT a "lesbian-feminist" ;-) I would rather call it "dystopian/utopian SF with feminist elements." If there has to be a label. > By the way, both French and German have third-person singular > non-gendered pronouns: "on" and "man", respectively. I took both languages in high school (many years ago) and only vaguely remembered these terms being mentioned in passing. Maybe because they were a) supposed to be either "literary" or slang terms, b) obscure (well, "man" was right there in my German dictionary so maybe not), or c) nobody really wanted to emphasize that there was a non-gendered way of referring to a person. I'm hoping they were just considered "literary" (i.e., for written work not everyday speech) terms. Lilith -- ********** http://www.concentric.net/~Ligeia/ *The Web * http://members.tripod.com/~othiym/ *Universe* http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/2527/ ********** http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Amphitheatre/5057/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 22:04:42 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kendra Smith Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: "equal socities" in SF Comments: To: Lilith In-Reply-To: <35513CCC.EA13036@concentric.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > I took both languages in high school (many years ago) and only vaguely > remembered these terms being mentioned in passing. Maybe because they > were a) supposed to be either "literary" or slang terms, b) obscure > (well, "man" was right there in my German dictionary so maybe not), or > c) nobody really wanted to emphasize that there was a non-gendered way > of referring to a person. I'm hoping they were just considered > "literary" (i.e., for written work not everyday speech) terms. > > Lilith It can be both: 'On' in French is used as English speaking people say "one." It's also used fairly often in idiomatic expressions, like the equivalent of English, "You have to do it" (meaning "One must do it) would be "On doit le fait." Or something similar. It is used a lot, though, from what I remember. --Kendra ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 15:13:22 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Equality: was feminism does not equal dominance In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:31 P 6/05/98 -0500, you wrote: >On Wed, 6 May 1998, joe santini wrote: > >> Marina, >> >> Not to attack personally, but where in hell is ANYBODY equal? I don't just >> mean women/men, i mean men/men, and even among groups. There is no >> equality. > >There isn't. Nor there exists equal opportunity for people of all races. >Does that mean we should embrace racism? > > Equality is some stupid concept >people came up with long ago to >> make some idiots happy and let people think this country was something >> special. > >The concept of equality was invented long before this country, believe it >or not. > (snip) > "At Central Railway Station everything was bleak and dirty. There seemed to be an inordinate number of derros, down and out punks and three-legged dogs about. Trudging through the tunnel, I told myself that there was a lesson to be learnt from all this. I just didnt know what the f*** it was. All I knew for sure was that life wasn't fair. It really is depressing to realise that there's only one true democracy in the world. The Brady Bunch." from "Girl's Night Out", Kathy Lette (1987) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 17:11:15 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tracy MacShane Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: "equal socities" In-Reply-To: <199805070407.QAA16550@orcon.mail.win.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT In French at least, "on" is used pretty colloquially (in general speech as well as writing). Maybe it's a problem with some TEACHERS at school who don't like to contemplate anything outside of their usual frames of reference - strange for someone who is teaching a second language (and by extension, another way of thinking!) As for the Dispossessed, it seems like Ursula LeGuin incorporated much of the feminist wish list (as weel as the anarchic one), so I dunno about it only having feminist "elements" This isn't supposed to be as abrupt as it sounds! (such a hassle writing from work!) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 03:07:16 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: ME Hunter Subject: Non-gendered pronounds (Re: [*FSFFU*] (Fwd) Re: "equal socities") In-Reply-To: <199805070504.RAA16782@orcon.mail.win.co.nz> (message from Tracy MacShane on Thu, 7 May 1998 17:11:15 +0000) I think it more likely that high school language teachers don't spend a lot of time focusing on linguistic concepts students don't have. So Lilith may not have really picked up on "on" simply because it isn't replacing something she uses in English. I find that I don't use it as much as native French speakers, probably for this reason. In Spanish class we learned the second-person plural (vosotros) conjugation (which is used in Spain, but not in Latin America) but almost never used it and I think this is the reason--we weren't really familiar with the concept. Having spent enough time immersed in the language to actually think in it, I found that upon my return to English as my primary language, I started using "y'all" since that's the closest English equivalent. E. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 08:50:01 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Ardath Mayhar In-Reply-To: <002801bd78cf$cddcb980$a0ae2499@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit She has both a web page (http://www.angelfire.com/biz/orbitbooks/) and an email address, available on the page. Vonda -- http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda http://www.sfwa.org/awards/1997neb.htm ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 13:00:39 GMT+100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: Re: male prof salaries In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19980506210410.4eb7c43a@pop.kent.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT On 6 May 98 , Heather MacLean wrote in response to a message from Lilith: > >I was looking over average salaries > >for Professors of various large universities in the US, and I was amazed > >to find that on the average, male Profs make about $20,000 more than do > >their female counterparts. Whywhywhy? > > 'Cuz (follow sweeping generalizations, ok?): > a) Women tend to devote some time to the department as a whole, or to other > causes (student groups/organizations, etc.), while their male counterparts > tend to feel less guilty about just leaving the office to work on their own > research (since pubs are the only thing that counts); women tend to spend > more time on the classes they teach than the men; > b) Since often merit systems are in place that reward pubs over and beyond > tenure and promotion, men gain incremental advantages over women's salaries > on a yearly basis because of a), and also > c) being a prof requires--generally--60-80 hrs of work/week or more. And if > you have a family and you're a woman, you're more likely to be the one > taking care of other stuff around the house, which cuts down on your time > you spend on research, which leads back to promotion, tenure, and merit issues. > > Rarely is it actual discrimination: instead, it tends to be a creeping > institutional thing. I'd like to add point d) sub-consciously the work of women is valued less than that of men. So women have to do work which is X times better than that of men to receive the same reward. IMO that is an intrinsic part of a patriarchial society and it is the part most difficult to identify, to fight and to overcome. An example: Some months back in Nature the result of a Swedish study on the evaluation of government grant proposal in (I think) medical research was published (the title was something like 'Sexism and nepotism in ...'). The researchers analysed which proposals were approved and which not. First they noted that although there was a significant percentage of proposals from women, the percentage was much smaller for the approved proposals. In the next step they derived some sort of 'objective' scale for scientific excellence by analysing the publication lists the applicants had to hand in. They counted number of publications and weighted them by the importance of the journal (somethere a ranking list of journals is published annually and they used that). In a last step they also included how often the papers were cited. Then they did a correlation analysis between success of applicant and the weighted publications number. The result was that women had to publish significantly more (unweighted and weighted) than men to get their grant proposals approved. The difference was something like 3-5 papers in Science (one of the highest ranking journals in science). The correlation was highly significant by the way. There was only one further influencing factor identified. When the proposal was handed in by someone who is in the research team of one of the evaluators, that increased the probability of approval significantly (despite the fact, that the evaluator is not part of the evaluation team in these cases). Petra **** Petra Mayerhofer *** HBS, Zi. O-21 *** Tel.: -49 **** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 09:13:41 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: Re: feminism does not equal dominance Hi all! A thousand apologies for the non-reply reply!!! Kendra Smith said: > This post struck me as very interesting, and (this time!!) I can relate > it back to science-fiction (although it isn't particularly feminist > science fiction). > > Has anyone ever read the short story "Harrison Bergeron" by (I think) > Kurt Vonnegut Jr.? For those who have not, it is the dystopian vision of > a government who -has- made everyone equal. They changed the "all men are > created equal" phrase in the Declaration of Independance to read "all men > are -not- created equal and it is the job of the government to render > them so." They go about doing this by stifling the gifts and talents > that make every person unique: those of exceeding grace must hang heavy > weights upon their body to make them less graceful, those very > intelligent must constantly wear a headpiece that continually blasts > obnoxious loud noises in the person's ear to make him or her lose their > train of thought. > > To me, this was -very- disturbing. To have a completely "equal" society > would mean to do exactly this: stifle the gifts and talents that we all > have. There has to be a better way. I read this short story...and it was VERY disturbing partly because of the concept, but also the way in which it was presented...parents/children subjected to emotional upset that was beyond cruel (IMHO). I never found Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.'s writing feminist, but imaginative, humorous, cynical, and (sometimes) offensive. Penny ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 10:05:33 -0400 Reply-To: ligeia@concentric.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lilith Organization: Sanity Assassins, Inc. Subject: Re: Non-gendered pronounds (Re: [*FSFFU*] (Fwd) Re: "equal socities") MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ME Hunter wrote: > I think it more likely that high school language teachers don't spend a lot > of time focusing on linguistic concepts students don't have. So Lilith may > not have really picked up on "on" simply because it isn't replacing > something she uses in English. Actually, alas, I don't use my languages much at all anymore (well, except my own); I have slacked off in that area....But it's still easier for me to watch a French film than it is for someone who never took the language (it all comes back as I listen to the dialogue) so maybe it's still in my brain somewhere... Obviously I need a total immersion in the language, preferably in Paris. :P > I found that upon my return to English as my primary language, I > started using "y'all" since that's the closest English equivalent. Actually, that's the 2nd person -- English doesn't differentiate between male and female in the 2nd person. "You" and "you all" (or "y'all") is gender neutral. (At least something in English is... :D) I wonder why we are gender-neutral when talking to someone directly but specific when referring to them when they are out of the room... Someone has probably come up with some psycho-historical reason but I haven't come across it yet, or I don't remember. Lilith -- ********** http://www.concentric.net/~Ligeia/ *The Web * http://members.tripod.com/~othiym/ *Universe* http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/2527/ ********** http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Amphitheatre/5057/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 10:51:36 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: BDG Halfway Human In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 5 May 1998, John Bertland wrote: (snip) > First off, I find the notion of being half human quite clumsy - it seems > like quite an exact measure for something that can't be quantified. But > "partially human", "sort of human", "not quite human" and so on would > all probably have been worse. I think the term "halfway human" served several purposes in the novel. One was to illustrate how Tedla was caught halfway between the "bland" world and the "human" one. The blands were so thoroughly disenfranchised that they were not even considered human even by themselves. Tedla was not a typical bland and was steadily trained until it couldn't fit into either world on Gammadis. "Halfway human" also illustrates Tedla's process of maturing and self-realization. It isn't until Tedla meets the Gammadan delegates twelve years after leaving it's world that it realizes that it has become too human to ever accept being a bland. Tedla never rejects the use of the word "it" but does eventually reject being a bland or non-human. (snip) > Of course "blands" are present in virtually every human society. I > wish Gilman had done a better job presenting this idea, but her > portrayal of Cappella Two is so sketchy and simplistic that it never > quite works as a contrast to Gammadis. We know there are "blands" on > Cappella just as we know there are "blands" in our own societies. We > never really get to meet or spend any substantial amount of time with > the ones on Cappella in the book and pretty much have to take Tedla's > word on it. I wanted to see more of Cappella II also. Val's family seemed to be living on the edge but I never sensed any real danger that they might fall through the cracks of their society. Only Galele's story gives any idea of how far down a person can go in Cappellan society and even that was fairly sketchy. The whole idea that "there are blands in every society" seemed to be tacked on at the end. (snip) > And that is the character of Tellegen, who very clearly romanticized the > blands as naive innocents. I was very bothered by his romantic > relationship with Tedla and still have trouble seeing it as anything > other than rape (or at least harrassment). He was abusing his position > of power, and Tedla at that point in its life was not at all free to > make the choice as to whether it was truly in love or not. The whole > affair was clouded by Tellegen's relationship as Tedla's guardian. This > might have only bothered me, though, and I would like to hear what > other's thought about it. With this reading, Tedla's two romantic > relationships are with a rapist and a pedophile, and it is no wonder > that it has such negative views of sexuality and non-neuter peole. I was also bothered by Tedla's relationships with the two men. I think it's relationship with Tellegen was to illustrate how exploited blands were and to show how Tedla was slowly but steadily being separated from bland society and yet still didn't have a place in human society. Tedla was caught between two worlds. I was more troubled by the revelation that Galele was a pedophile. Why was this necessary? There could have been any number of reasons why a man would be willing to leave his world behind but why this particular reason? It really seemed unfair to the character of Galele and wasn't really necessary for moving the story along. Am I the only one bothered by this? (snip) > 2) Did this remind anyone else of Jane Eyre? (orphanages, falling in > love with your master, people in the attic burning things down, etc.) Now that you mention it there is a sort of resemblance! Thanks for pointing it out. > -John Bertland > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 10:58:53 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: BDG Halfway Human In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 6 May 1998, Anita Easton wrote: > John Bertland writes: > > I did not find the book particularly entertaining at all; rather, I > > found it to be turgid with a spectacularly unsatisfying ending. As > > with > > Did anyone find any merit in the ending at all? It seemed like a total > cop out, but I'm hoping I missed something. I also thought the ending was a bit of a cop out. I was hoping for a really tragic and depressing ending full of dark despair and pathos. A downbeat ending would have been more appropriate. > Anita > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 12:46:00 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elisa Kay Sparks Subject: Re: web page on Imagined Sexual Futures Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Mary-Ellen: Yes, I only posted a first draft of this page a couple of months ago and was hoping to expand it this summer. You can see that lots of the lists stop at around 1990. I got a copy of URANIAN WORLDS from E.R. Hamilton, a seller of remaindered and other bargin books (web address: http://www.hamiltonbook.com/) for something like $4 and have been going through it color-coding things. Thanks very much for your suggestions, and if anyone else has more books to to add, in any categories, I will be happy to include them. I thought that I could expanded the service covered by the Theme Categories in Laura's wonderful site. >Dear Elisa; > >I visited your page, listed above, and was surprised to find nothing listed >under the Homosexuality category. If you need info and not just more time >(don't we all need that), I have some suggestions. Much of Joanna Russ' work >would fit, as would Katherine Forrest's, "Daughters of a Coral Dawn", etc., >etc. Have you seen "Uranian Worlds; a Guide to Alternative Sexuality in >Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror" by Garber and Paleo, pub. 1990? I bought >mine 4 or 5 years ago - but it might still be available. > >It's a great web page, let me know if I can be of help. I apologize if this is >territory you've already covered. > >Mary-Ellen >Crystal Mist Glass Carving >Guffey, CO > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Dr. Elisa Kay Sparks e-mail: sparks@hubcap.clemson.edu Department of English Office phone: (864) 656-5410 Strode Tower FAX: (864)656-1345 Clemson University Clemson, SC 29634-1503 http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~sparks/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 12:09:18 -0500 Reply-To: margaret@onr.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Margaret Ball Subject: Re: Almost Human Comments: To: ligeia@concentric.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > As a side note, there are many languages where there isn't actually a separate > third-person singular pronoun for men and women, such as Finnish and Japanese. > (Right? Any Finnish or Japanese people or speakers out there want to correct > me if I'm wrong? Can't say for Finnish and Japanese, but I do know that this is true of Swahili. Can't remember offhand how many classes of nouns there are, but both men and women are in the M/WA class and get the same form of pronoun. (Of course, the society is hardly nonsexist in other ways...) -Margaret Ball ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 14:05:01 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Vlee01 Subject: Re: Almost Human Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/7/98, 1:59:30 PM, margaret@onr.com writes: <<> As a side note, there are many languages where there isn't actually a separate > third-person singular pronoun for men and women, such as Finnish and Japanese.>> Actually in Japanese there are third person singular [masculine ('kareshi') and feminine ('kanojo')] pronouns. They are interchangeably used with the third person pronoun phrase 'ano/kono hito' (lit. 'that person/this person') which is gender-neutral. Vivian. (newbie delurking) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 18:11:29 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: male prof salaries >Some months back in Nature the result of a Swedish study >on the evaluation of government grant proposal in (I think) medical >research was published [snip] They >counted number of publications and weighted them by the importance of >the journal (somethere a ranking list of journals is published >annually and they used that). In a last step they also included how >often the papers were cited. Then they did a correlation analysis >between success of applicant and the weighted publications number. What they _did_ find was the women's papers, though fewer in overall number, were often more important papers in terms of adding something to the discipline and being cited by later researchers. The men were just banging them out. I think I read some earlier research to this effect - that when there was weighting for citation rather than just publication, the women did significantly better. I have certainly noticed at academic conferences etc in my own area, women only tend to ask questions after a paper if they have something to say or contribute; there are at least some men who do it in order to make a point of speaking up (even if it's to say nothing worthwhile) to be heard and noticed. And going to conferences where a large percentage of the attendance consists of women, the tenor of discussions also tends to be a good deal less adversarial! Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 18:26:09 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: OT - Re: [*FSFFU*] feminism does not equal dominance <> >I visited your page, listed above, and was surprised to find nothing >listed under the Homosexuality category.[various suggestions snipped] Enormous numbers of possible recommendations that could be made, one which may be less well known is Helen Wright's _A Matter of Oaths_ 1988 Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 14:57:29 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: "equal socities" in SF In-Reply-To: <199805070407.QAA16550@orcon.mail.win.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 7 May 1998, Tracy MacShane wrote: > By the way, both French and German have third-person singular non-gendered > pronouns: "on" and "man", respectively. > It seems that English is getting there, too, by using the word "they". Like, in "each _person_ must take responsibility for their _actions_". Even though it's against the traditional English grammar, you can often see "they", "their", "them" used in relation to a singular third person of non-specified gender. It's interesting how social evolution affects the language. For example, who would say a "congressperson" a hundred years ago? Now, they put it in word processors, so if you write "congressman" the program will higlight it as a possible syntax error. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 16:11:18 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: ME Hunter Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: "equal socities" in SF In-Reply-To: (message from Marina on Thu, 7 May 1998 14:57:29 -0500) Marina wrote: >It seems that English is getting there, too, by using the word "they". >Like, in "each _person_ must take responsibility for their _actions_". Even >though it's against the traditional English grammar, you can often see >"they", "their", "them" used in relation to a singular third person of >non-specified gender. English has pretty much always done this, as far as I can tell. It's just one of those stupid things grammar mavens like to go on about which has nothing to do with the way the language is actually spoken. It's not a pronoun/antecedent situation, it's a variable/quantifier exercise. Stephen Pinker has a very coherent explanation of this from a linguistic perspective in _The Language Instinct_. E. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 15:10:21 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: BDG Halfway Human In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > On Tue, 5 May 1998, John Bertland wrote: > > (snip) > > First off, I find the notion of being half human quite clumsy - it seems > > like quite an exact measure for something that can't be quantified. But > > "partially human", "sort of human", "not quite human" and so on would > > all probably have been worse. > I think it's pretty close to the Nazi term of "inferior human", used to describe "non-arian races": "Untermensch", if I spell it right. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 08:48:10 +1200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anita Easton Subject: Re: feminism does not equal dominance MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit joe santini writes: > invariably fail. And why should women let themselves take the short end of > the stick, anyway? Why do they want to be equal? Why don't they want the > superiority that's been denied them for so many years? Why don't they take > it? I've noted before and elsewhere that nobody can oppress someone who > doesn't believe they should be oppressed. What have you, and men like you, done to women to make them believe that they should be oppressed? Can't you see what you've written above acts to perpetuate those beliefs? Argh, I've been trying to ignore the whole non SFF side of this discussion, but that really bugged me. As penance... I've just finished reading _Shadow's End_ by Sherri S. Tepper. I really enjoyed the characters, tho I found the eco-parable theme kinda facile. It spent some time thinking about Saluez' (sp?) beliefs about how she had sinned/failed and deserved what happened to her. There are parallels for me between Saluez' views of herself and Tedla's self-image. These parallels reminded me of how our society opresses women by teaching us to believe that the oppression, discrimination and violence we experience is our own fault. Anita ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 16:08:34 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: male/female behavior (was male prof salaries) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 7 May 1998, Lesley Hall wrote: > I have certainly noticed at academic conferences etc in > my own area, women only tend to ask questions after a paper if they have > something to say or contribute; there are at least some men who do it in order > to make a point of speaking up (even if it's to say nothing worthwhile) to be > heard and noticed. I sometimes do it in class, too. I think it's more of Lisa Simpson-type geeky desire to show off one's knowledge more than anything else. However, you cannot even imagine how much it enrages the males present, both students and teachers. Even though when guys do that it's never a problem. Last semester, I had a teacher who would go berserk every time I asked a question (even though I did it only if I _really_ did not understand something). Eventually I came to conclusion that the guy had a problem, and simply stopped asking. Honestly, I become afraid to say anything, because it only caused him to make a scene. Imagine my surprise when one time, talking about a former student (a guy) "who used to give him hard time", this professor said that he actually likes questions, beacuse it's good for the learning process. After class, I asked the guy, "If you like questions, why you always get so upset when I ask them?" He said, " It's because you are a girl. It's a lot harder to take criticism from a girl! " This was meant to be a joke, but I did not find it funny. However, the department chair, when I tried to talk to her about this, just gave me a blank look and said: " He probably likes you, that's why he acts like that. Just be quiet and he'll leave you alone." This was kind of an extreme case. But being a Computer Science major, I always notice that in most of my classes, even the three-four females present there hardly ever say a word. Whether they are getting A's, or flunking, they are always quiet. And I can't really blame them. Going back to that discussion of how people assign gender: I had a lot of people suspecting me of being transsexual just because I don't "act like a girl" (whatever in the Hell that means). "Have you always been a female?" -- half-joking tone and a cautious look :) It's funny, but it seems that behavior is a lot more important in this than appearance. Because I look anything but "butch". I'm a lot more of Julia Roberts type - pale, skinny, and helpless-looking (can't stand Julia Roberts!). However, when I start talking, it somehow scares people a lot more than the muscular buzz-cut women with big fists speaking up. > the And going to conferences where a large percentage of the > attendance consists of women, the tenor of discussions also tends to be > a good deal less adversarial! I think this is at least in part because women are taught to always try to get along. Even by the means of agreeing with something you don't believe. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 16:14:09 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: "equal socities" in SF In-Reply-To: <199805072011.QAA23743@asylum.apocalypse.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 7 May 1998, ME Hunter wrote: > Marina wrote: > > >It seems that English is getting there, too, by using the word "they". > >Like, in "each _person_ must take responsibility for their _actions_". Even > >though it's against the traditional English grammar, you can often see > >"they", "their", "them" used in relation to a singular third person of > >non-specified gender. > > English has pretty much always done this, as far as I can tell. It's just > one of those stupid things grammar mavens like to go on about which has > nothing to do with the way the language is actually spoken. It's not a > pronoun/antecedent situation, it's a variable/quantifier exercise. > > Stephen Pinker has a very coherent explanation of this from a linguistic > perspective in _The Language Instinct_. You are probably right. But I had never seen this used until I came to US, and it's definitrly not the way they teach you English in the schools abroad -- you can't say "their" with a "person", just as you will never see the "his/her" construct. That's why I figured it was new. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 09:32:54 +1200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jenny Subject: FSSF - Imagined sexual futures MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, I just noticed Elisa's post about Katherine Forrest's "Daughters of a Coral Dawn'. I have kept this book and cherished it because it is the worst published book I have ever read. It is published by Naiad, a lesbian publisher with a reputation for lesbian pulp fiction. It is full of wonderful examples of how to write badly. I reread bits of it occasionally when I think my own writing is getting sloppy, overly rhetorical, pedantic or sentimental, to get myself back on track. I wouldn't include it on any list of imagined sexual futures or anything else without a huge rider to its total lack of imagination and terrible quality. KF went on to write some reasonable detective fiction which I have enjoyed, although the sentimentality still comes through occasionally. This is a trait I strongly dislike (in case you hadn't guessed) and which I find common in some feminist fiction. Anne McAffery (sp?) and Mercedes Lackey are two examples. Anybody else got any opinions about DOACD or sentimentality in women's fiction? Jenny R Publicity Officer Health Research Council of NZ PO Box 5541, Auckland 1 Phone 09 303 5202 Visit our website at http://www.hrc.govt.nz/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 19:07:10 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Re: male/female behavior (was male prof salaries) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Marina, Re: the entire note really, but here mostly: >.......Going back to that discussion of how people assign gender: I >had a lot of people suspecting me of being transsexual just because I >don't "act like a girl" (whatever in the Hell that means). "Have you >always been a female?" -- half-joking tone and a cautious look :) It's >funny, but it seems that behavior is a lot more important in this than >appearance. Because I look anything but "butch". I'm a lot more of Julia >Roberts type - pale, skinny, and helpless-looking (can't stand Julia >Roberts!). However, when I start talking, it somehow scares people a lot >more than the muscular buzz-cut women with big fists speaking up. I want to bow to you before all. You are one of the most fascinating people I have ever "met". AND one of my personal heroes. Go girl! I am going to start a fund to contribute to your tuition so you can remain forever in that Ivory Tower wreaking havoc with their assumptions. (chuckling) donna donnaneely@earthlink.net "If we are afraid to insist we are right, then what?" June Jordan, Oct 89 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 19:32:49 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: ME Hunter Subject: Re: male/female behavior (was male prof salaries) In-Reply-To: (message from Marina on Thu, 7 May 1998 16:08:34 -0500) This is way off topic, but I just had to comment on Marina's post. If your professor treated you this way and your department head even said that this was probably based on his sexual/romantic reaction to you, then it seems very clear that you have been a victim of sexual discrimination and harrassment. Ick! *But* I feel like I have to add, from my own experience, that I find it unbelievable that so many women find it easier to talk in all female groups. My experience (undergrad split between Columbia (coed) and Wellesley (all female) and living at MIT for two years) is that classroom discussions are much more productive in coed groups. When I was at Wellesley people were actively annoyed that I made comments and asked questions in class. I found that the women there may have talked more, but it was insipid. This maps onto non-academic all-female groups where it seems as though women are so concerned with maintaining the group cohesiveness that no one ever wants to say anythign that the professor or her peers do not want to hear. By contrast, in my coed classes I felt that the very presence of outspoken men stimulated me and the other women in the class to challenge their assumptions and to learn how they played the game. Of course I'm making generalizations here, but this is a much closer map of my experience in different-sexed groups than the recent studies and Marin's post and I felt compelled to mention this. E. who's off to type "I will not post off-topic again" 1000 times ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 19:52:19 +0000 Reply-To: terriergraphics@cybertours.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Terri Wakefield Organization: Terrier Graphic Design Subject: Re: BDG Voting begins 5/2 Comments: cc: jkrauel@ACTIONEER.COM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jana! I have received your votes for the following books nominated for the BDG group read. > Mary Doria Russell's THE SPARROW > Sheri S. Tepper's FAMILY TREE > Melissa Scott's SHADOW MAN Thanks! Terri Wakefield ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 12:50:07 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tracy MacShane Subject: Re: : Tacky writers In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Yes, I have to say that Daughters of a Coral Dawn is THE most tacky lesbo/SF novel I have ever encountered. But, as Dorothy Allison says in one of her essays, mind-candy certainly fulfills some needs that we seem to have for fantasy (in the general sense) in our lives. It's *nice* to have something in which the issues are clear-cut, a bit of romance goes on, and there's a happy ending! (unlike life, a lot of the time) Who was it that said: "Some read to remember, others read to forget"? As I don't have the mind-candy of TV, I find reading trashy novelsa great way of forgetting! And yes, Anne McCaffrey makes my hair curl often, too. I don't think Mercedes Lackey is nearly in her league (hair-curling-wise) - I don't think her sex role stuff is that cliched (based on reality, but more optomistic, is how I'd interpret it). The strengths of many of these types of authors is their focus on characterisation, something I find SF often falls down in. Onto the language theme again, "they" "them" etc has indeed been used as a singular 3rd person pronoun for ever. In fact, the OED cites a quotation of "they" used like this in 1526!!! (blame the Victorians, and their incomprehensible desire to base the rules of English grammar on Latin)